Traditional Minimum-Contacts, Not Zippo: Vermont Holds That Data‑for‑Service Contracts and Forum‑Targeted Ads Support Specific Jurisdiction over Social Media Platforms

Introduction

In State v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 2025 VT 51 (Vt. Aug. 29, 2025), the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the civil division’s denial of Meta’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a statewide consumer-protection action. The State alleges that Meta (through Instagram) violated the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) by unfairly designing Instagram to be addictive to teens and by deceptively downplaying internal research about harms to youth. Meta—incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California—challenged Vermont’s specific personal jurisdiction.

The decision addresses when a state court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident operator of a nationwide online platform whose revenue model depends on collecting user data and selling targeted advertising. The Court adopts traditional minimum-contacts principles—eschewing the old “Zippo sliding scale”—and holds that a platform’s deliberate exploitation of a state’s market through user contracts for data, targeted ad sales to in‑state businesses, and forum-specific engagement research constitutes purposeful availment. The State’s VCPA claims “relate to” those contacts because they challenge the very business model that drives the platform’s in‑forum conduct and alleged harms, even though the alleged misrepresentations were not made in or expressly aimed at Vermont.

Key issues

Whether operating a nationwide social-media platform, entering into user agreements with Vermonters to collect personal data, selling ads to Vermont businesses targeting Vermont teens, and studying Vermont user engagement establish purposeful availment.
Whether VCPA claims premised on addictive design and deceptive omissions “arise out of or relate to” those Vermont contacts, absent Vermont-specific misrepresentations.
Whether asserting jurisdiction complies with fair play and substantial justice.

Summary of the Opinion

The Vermont Supreme Court (Carroll, J.) affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Vermont courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Meta for the VCPA claims. Applying traditional due process standards:

Purposeful availment: Meta deliberately and continuously exploited Vermont’s market by (i) contracting with tens of thousands of Vermont users (including teens) to collect data in exchange for platform access; (ii) selling advertising inventory to Vermont businesses targeting Vermonters and Vermont teens; and (iii) tracking and studying Vermont teen engagement to increase usage and ad revenue. Physical shipment of goods is not required for purposeful availment.
Relatedness: The State’s claims “relate to” Meta’s Vermont contacts because the claims challenge Meta’s business model—data-for-service and targeted advertising—that is executed in Vermont and allegedly causes in‑state teen harms. Due process does not require strict but‑for causation; Ford Motor’s “arise out of or relate to” standard governs.
Effects test unnecessary: The Court did not apply Calder’s “effects test” because traditional minimum‑contacts analysis sufficed, and misrepresentations need not be aimed at Vermont to support jurisdiction where the defendant created and exploited the Vermont market.
Fairness: Exercising jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. The concern that this “blurs” general and specific jurisdiction is unfounded because the State’s claims are anchored in Meta’s Vermont‑directed activities and Vermont’s strong regulatory interests.

The Court expressly declined to apply the Zippo interactivity test, emphasizing that traditional principles govern internet cases. It distinguished Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s limit on nonresident plaintiffs suing in a forum with only general connections, and it aligned itself with recent authorities sustaining jurisdiction over digital platforms based on forum-directed monetization strategies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985): These cases supply the overarching due process framework: defendants must have minimum contacts such that jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” and purposeful availment requires non‑fortuitous, deliberate contacts. Vermont’s analysis tracks this orthodoxy.
World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980): The Court reiterates the foreseeability principle—that defendants should reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum based on their own conduct—when a company reaches into the state’s market. Meta’s targeted ad sales and user contracts made Vermont litigation foreseeable.
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014): Walden clarifies that the defendant’s conduct, not the plaintiff’s unilateral activity, must link the defendant to the forum. Vermont deploys this to reject Meta’s argument that jurisdiction rests solely on users’ unilateral decisions. Meta’s research on Vermont teens, its contracts with Vermont users, and its sale of Vermont‑targeted ads are Meta’s own in‑forum choices.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984): The Court analogizes Meta’s deliberate, repeated engagement with Vermont users and advertisers to Hustler’s continuous magazine distribution in New Hampshire. Physical shipments are not decisive; what matters is the defendant’s continuous and deliberate exploitation of the forum’s market. This analogy anchors the holding that nationwide platforms can be sued in states whose markets they intentionally cultivate.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021): The Vermont Court adopts Ford’s flexible “arise out of or relate to” standard, rejecting strict causation for relatedness. Just as Ford could be sued where its products were marketed, used, and allegedly malfunctioned, Meta can be sued where it markets, operates, and monetizes the product whose design and messaging allegedly harm in‑state users.
Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (2017): Vermont distinguishes BMS, which barred California from adjudicating nonresident plaintiffs’ claims lacking a California connection. Here, the alleged injuries and the contested conduct occur in Vermont: Vermont teens use the app in Vermont, and the State alleges in‑state harms. Hence, the forum’s interest and the connection between contacts and claims satisfy Ford/BMS principles.
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007); Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085 (9th Cir. 2023); Admar Int’l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783 (5th Cir. 2021): Each underscores that internet cases are governed by traditional jurisdictional principles. Vermont aligns with this consensus, declining to treat online operations as jurisdictionally exceptional.
Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997): The Court notes that the trial court declined to apply the outdated “sliding‑scale/interactivity” test, and Meta did not press it on appeal. Vermont therefore applies the standard minimum‑contacts test and signals skepticism about Zippo’s modern utility.
uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010) and be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011): uBID supports jurisdiction when a national business blankets the forum with marketing, builds a customer base, and reaps in‑forum revenue; be2 contrasts with far thinner contacts (20 free user profiles). Vermont uses these to show Meta’s contacts exceed mere accessibility.
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2020): This case is central to Vermont’s analysis: monetizing forum users through location‑based ads, even for a free service, constitutes purposeful availment. Meta’s sale of Vermont‑targeted ads mirrors Kurbanov’s revenue model and supports foreseeability of suit in Vermont.
State v. TikTok Inc., 245 N.E.3d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), transfers denied, 262 N.E.3d 818 (Ind. 2025): The Indiana appellate court likewise found specific jurisdiction where TikTok exchanged access for user data and monetized it through targeted ads. Vermont cites TikTok as persuasive authority that large‑scale, continuous, data‑driven engagement with forum users is well beyond the due‑process minimum.
Fidrych v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 952 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2020): Vermont distinguishes Fidrych’s “drop‑down menu” as mere accessibility without targeting. By contrast, Meta’s Vermont‑targeted ad sales and Vermont‑specific engagement research demonstrate purposeful direction into Vermont.
Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314 (5th Cir. 2021); Hasson v. FullStory, Inc., 114 F.4th 181 (3d Cir. 2024): Both decisions are largely “effects test” cases (Calder) and were distinguishable. Vermont emphasizes it is not relying on Calder because traditional minimum contacts are satisfied. Johnson’s relatedness analysis (in a libel context) does not apply, as Vermont’s claims challenge Meta’s monetization model itself. Hasson is also distinguishable: there, in‑state stores and general marketing were not tied to the alleged web‑tracking harm; here, the app and the monetization strategy are the alleged source of harm within Vermont.
Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2002): Vermont draws a key doctrinal point from Pinker: when a company creates a market in the forum, its general representations—even if not forum‑targeted—can be reasonably relied on by forum participants. Thus, Vermont need not show that Meta’s alleged misrepresentations were made in or aimed at Vermont to support jurisdiction under the traditional test.
Vermont authorities: Dall v. Kaylor, 163 Vt. 274, 658 A.2d 78 (1995); N. Aircraft, Inc. v. Reed, 154 Vt. 36, 572 A.2d 1382 (1990); State v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 2016 VT 22, 201 Vt. 342, 142 A.3d 215; Fox v. Fox, 2014 VT 100, 197 Vt. 466, 106 A.3d 919: These cases provide the state‑law scaffolding: Vermont’s long‑arm statute reaches to constitutional limits; review is de novo; prima facie showings suffice at the pleading stage; and fairness considerations apply after minimum contacts. Dall’s observation that technological change reduces the salience of physical geography anticipates cases like this one.

Legal Reasoning

1) Purposeful availment

The Court identifies multiple, interlocking contacts that are Meta’s own deliberate choices:

User contracts and data exchange: Instagram is “free,” but users must agree to share age, location, and other personal data. This exchange is a business transaction with Vermont users that Meta invokes to monetize usage through targeted ads. The Court treats this as meaningful, repeated commercial engagement—not passive receipt of web traffic.
Targeted ad sales: Meta sells advertising to Vermont businesses aimed at Vermont markets and Vermont teens specifically. Like UMG v. Kurbanov, such geography‑specific monetization shows purposeful direction to the forum.
Forum‑specific research and engagement efforts: Meta studied Vermont teen Instagram usage, identified Vermont as having high penetration, and sought to increase Vermont teen engagement. This demonstrates intentional cultivation of the Vermont market, akin to Keeton’s regular circulation.

Meta’s arguments that accessibility is user‑driven (unilateral), or that there was no physical shipment of goods into Vermont, were rejected. Physical presence is not required (Walden, Burger King); what matters is deliberate exploitation. The platform’s national availability does not neutralize Vermont‑specific conduct (uBID).

2) Relatedness: claims “arise out of or relate to” Vermont contacts

Under Ford Motor, strict but‑for causation is unnecessary. The State alleges that Meta’s business model—data‑for‑service contracts and ad‑driven engagement maximization—produced the design and messaging choices that allegedly harm Vermont teens. Those choices were implemented in Vermont: Vermont teens used the product in Vermont; Meta monetized that use through Vermont‑targeted ads; and Meta studied Vermont teen use to increase engagement. This is enough “affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy” to satisfy relatedness under Ford.

The Court rejects arguments that relatedness fails because the State does not challenge the contracts per se, does not allege that ads themselves addict users, and does not tie research to a specific design change. Ford squarely rejects a causation‑only approach; the allegations need only relate to—rather than be strictly caused by—the contacts. By contrast, Johnson’s libel‑specific analysis is inapposite: here, the revenue model and in‑forum monetization are central to the alleged harm.

3) No need for the Calder “effects test”

The Court notes that the “effects test” is typically deployed for intentional torts where traditional minimum contacts are lacking or uncertain (e.g., defamation claims requiring express aiming). Because Vermont is satisfied that purposeful availment exists under the traditional test, there is no need to show that misrepresentations were “expressly aimed” at Vermont. Pinker supports the proposition that where a defendant creates a forum market, general representations may be relied on by forum participants for jurisdictional purposes.

4) Fairness: traditional Burger King factors

Having found minimum contacts and relatedness, the Court briefly addresses fairness. Meta’s principal argument—that this would expose it to suit everywhere—misconceives the limits: Bristol‑Myers and Ford constrain jurisdiction to forums with genuine ties to the controversy. Vermont’s regulatory interests under the VCPA are compelling; the State sues over harms to Vermont teens arising from in‑state use and monetization. No “compelling case” of unreasonableness is made.

Impact and Implications

1) A clear template for jurisdiction over online platforms

Vermont’s opinion is a robust, state‑high‑court affirmation that traditional minimum‑contacts doctrine fully governs internet platforms. It contributes to an emerging consensus:

Data‑for‑service user contracts are commercial engagements that support purposeful availment.
Forum‑targeted advertising, and selling inventory to forum businesses to reach forum users, is core evidence of forum exploitation.
Forum‑specific analytics and efforts to increase engagement show deliberate cultivation of the market.
Misrepresentations need not be forum‑aimed where the defendant has created and exploited the forum market that receives and relies on those representations.

2) Practical consequences for litigation

State AG enforcement: Attorneys general can more readily bring consumer‑protection suits against national platforms in their own courts by developing fact records showing user numbers, user data contracts, forum‑specific engagement research, and in‑state ad monetization. The amici support from Iowa and 46 other states underscores nationwide interest in such enforcement.
Private litigation: Plaintiffs bringing forum‑centric claims tied to platform design, data practices, or advertising will point to this case (and TikTok, Kurbanov) to argue for jurisdiction without resorting to Calder.
Defense strategies: Platforms may contest relatedness by arguing the alleged harm is conceptually distinct from ad monetization or local business sales, but Ford Motor’s flexible standard reduces the force of strict causation arguments.
Decline of Zippo: Litigants should expect courts to eschew Zippo’s interactivity spectrum in favor of traditional minimum‑contacts analysis that examines commercial targeting, monetization, and forum‑specific cultivation.

3) Boundaries and limiting principles

No general jurisdiction: The Court reiterates that Meta is not “at home” in Vermont; jurisdiction remains claim‑specific.
Bristol‑Myers guardrail: Nonresident plaintiffs lacking in‑forum injury or conduct cannot bootstrap into Vermont courts; the forum must have a genuine connection to the controversy.
Effects test remains available: Where traditional contacts are thin or where the claim is an intentional tort with negligible forum targeting, Calder’s “express aiming” requirement may still be decisive. Vermont simply did not need it here.

4) Compliance and product design considerations

Platforms whose business models rely on user data and geographically targeted ads should assume that:

Entering into standard user agreements with forum residents can be jurisdictionally significant, especially when paired with data collection and analytics.
Accepting and selling geo‑targeted advertising inventory to forum businesses is a strong purposeful‑availment indicator.
Conducting forum‑specific analysis to increase engagement strengthens the inference of deliberate market cultivation.

While jurisdiction alone does not resolve merits or defenses (e.g., under Section 230 or state‑law doctrines not at issue here), it increases the likelihood that such cases will be adjudicated in the forums where user harms are alleged to occur.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal jurisdiction: A court’s power to require a defendant to appear and defend a lawsuit. It has two types:
- General jurisdiction: The defendant is “at home” in the forum (e.g., place of incorporation or principal place of business). Not at issue here.
- Specific jurisdiction: The defendant’s in‑forum contacts give rise to or relate to the claims sued upon.
Purposeful availment: The defendant deliberately engages with the forum—exploiting its market, contracting with residents, or targeting ads—so it can reasonably foresee being sued there.
Arise out of or relate to: A flexible standard from Ford Motor. The claims must be connected to the defendant’s forum activities; strict cause‑and‑effect is not required.
Calder “effects test”: A jurisdictional test often used in defamation/intentional torts where the defendant’s conduct is expressly aimed at the forum and the forum is the focal point of the harm.
Zippo sliding scale: An older approach gauging website interactivity to determine jurisdiction. Vermont signals that modern courts should apply traditional minimum‑contacts principles instead.
Prima facie showing (at pleadings stage): Without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, would support jurisdiction; courts view pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Interlocutory appeal: An appeal taken before the final resolution of the entire case, permitted here to review the personal‑jurisdiction ruling.

Conclusion

State v. Meta Platforms cements a clear rule in Vermont: an online platform that deliberately exploits the State’s market—by contracting with users for data, selling geographically targeted ads to in‑state businesses, and analyzing forum users to increase engagement—purposefully avails itself of Vermont and can be sued there for claims that relate to that business model. The Court faithfully applies Ford Motor’s “arise out of or relate to” standard, rejects strict causation, and declines to require forum‑aimed misrepresentations under Calder. It also signals the waning relevance of Zippo’s interactivity test in modern internet cases.

The ruling has broad ramifications for consumer‑protection enforcement against digital platforms. It provides a doctrinal roadmap: show in‑state user contracts and data practices, forum‑specific monetization through ads, and targeted efforts to grow engagement; then tie the claims to that business model. At the same time, Bristol‑Myers and Ford ensure the jurisdictional boundary holds: states may adjudicate claims with real in‑forum connections, not those arising elsewhere. In short, when a platform reaps the benefits of a state’s online market, it may be called to account in that state’s courts for related alleged misconduct.