“Actual Knowledge” as the Linchpin of Calder-Effects Personal Jurisdiction:
A Detailed Commentary on Boyd v. Cleara, L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

Boyd v. Cleara, L.L.C., No. 24-10609, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on July 24, 2025, addresses whether a consumer-reporting agency that collects information from a forum state but never intentionally directs its report into that state can be sued there under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Plaintiff-appellant John Paul Boyd, a Texas resident, alleged that Cleara, L.L.C., a Pennsylvania LLC headquartered in Maryland, inaccurately reported a dismissed criminal charge, causing Texas apartment complexes to deny his rental applications. The district court dismissed the suit against Cleara for lack of personal jurisdiction; Boyd appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that specific personal jurisdiction premised on the Calder “effects” doctrine requires the defendant’s actual knowledge that the alleged tort will cause effects in the forum. Merely gathering data from the forum or foreseeing possible use there is insufficient.

Summary of the Judgment

• The panel (Judges Jones, Southwick & Oldham) reviewed the jurisdictional dismissal de novo.
• General jurisdiction was undisputedly lacking: Cleara is neither incorporated nor “at home” in Texas (Daimler standard).
• Specific jurisdiction failed because:
  • Boyd relied solely on the Calder v. Jones effects test for intentional torts.
  • Calder demands conduct “expressly aimed” at the forum, which in the Fifth Circuit includes an actual-knowledge requirement (Revell v. Lidov).
  • Boyd never alleged—let alone established—that Cleara knew its report would be used (or cause harm) in Texas.
  • Cleara’s mere acquisition of Texas public records, without more, is “untargeted conduct,” insufficient under Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media.
• Alternative arguments (other business contacts, request for jurisdictional discovery) were held forfeited for inadequate briefing below and on appeal.
• Judgment: Affirmed—Cleara is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)
   Defined constitutional limits of general jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit swiftly applied it to conclude Cleara is not “at home” in Texas.
2. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)
   The foundational “effects test” for intentional-tort jurisdiction. The Court in Calder emphasized that defendants knew and intended their defamatory article to harm a California plaintiff in California. The Fifth Circuit imports an “actual knowledge” gloss to this test.
3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
   Makes clear that mere foreseeability is not enough; defendant’s conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum. Used to rebut Boyd’s foreseeability argument.
4. Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002)
   Explicit statement of the actual-knowledge requirement for Calder. Quoted to show that a defendant must be “chargeable with knowledge of the forum.”
5. Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, 415 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2005)
   Held that using Texas sources for an article about a Texan, but publishing primarily to a German audience, did not target Texas. Provides the closest factual analogy.
6. Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314 (5th Cir. 2021)
   Reiterated untargeted conduct cannot ground jurisdiction; invoked to buttress the conclusion.
7. Procedural Forfeiture Cases – Rollins v. Home Depot USA and Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA underscored that even arguments for jurisdiction can be forfeited if not timely raised.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

The panel’s reasoning proceeds in three precise steps:

1. Identify the applicable jurisdictional framework. Only specific jurisdiction was plausibly in play; the intentional-tort variant of the minimum-contacts inquiry applies.
2. Apply the refined Calder test. Citing Revell and Fielding, the court intertwined two inquiries: (a) Did Cleara intend its conduct (the inaccurate report) to cause effects in Texas? (b) Did it know those effects would be felt there? The absence of an allegation of actual knowledge ended the analysis.
3. Reject the foreseeability-only approach. Boyd’s argument reduced to “Cleara should have known,” the very formulation repudiated by World-Wide Volkswagen. Mere data collection in Texas, without direction of the tort into Texas, fails to establish purposeful availment.

Impact of the Decision

• FCRA Litigation Strategy. Plaintiffs harmed by nationally compiled credit or tenant reports may find it harder to sue in their home states unless they can allege the reporting agency knew the report would be used in that state.
• Data-Aggregator Exposure. Companies gathering records nationwide but delivering reports centrally (to, e.g., third-party brokers) gain a jurisdictional shield in the Fifth Circuit absent evidence of targeting.
• Clarification of Fifth Circuit Doctrine. The opinion locking in the “actual knowledge” element reduces doctrinal wiggle room created by other circuits’ broader readings of Calder. It also distances the Fifth Circuit from the Ninth Circuit’s once-lenient stance (notably reversed en banc in Briskin v. Shopify).
• Forum-shopping Constraints. Plaintiffs must either sue where the defendant is at home or where the defendant delivered the report. This may increase multi-district or consolidated suits against large consumer-reporting agencies.
• Judicial Efficiency. The decision underscores the importance of proper pleading and non-forfeiture, signaling that appellate advocacy must fully develop each jurisdictional path and discovery request.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Personal Jurisdiction

• General Jurisdiction: Defendant’s home (place of incorporation or principal place of business); suit may involve any claim.
• Specific Jurisdiction: Suit-related contacts with forum; requires (a) minimum contacts purposely directed at forum, (b) claims arising out of those contacts, and (c) fairness.

2. The Calder “Effects” Test

Developed for intentional torts (e.g., defamation). The defendant must (i) commit an intentional act, (ii) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (iii) know the brunt of harm will be felt there. The Fifth Circuit’s gloss: “expressly aimed” = actual knowledge + targeting.

3. Foreseeability vs. Purposeful Availment

Foreseeability—the idea that a defendant could predict its conduct might affect the forum—is not sufficient. Purposeful availment demands deliberate engagement with the forum or intentional targeting of its market or citizens.

4. Jurisdictional Discovery

Limited discovery aimed at uncovering facts to support jurisdiction. Appellate courts review denial for abuse of discretion, but litigants must specify what evidence they expect to find and why it matters—mere conjecture is inadequate.

Conclusion

Boyd v. Cleara cements a stringent interpretation of the Calder effects test within the Fifth Circuit. By requiring actual knowledge of forum-directed harm, the court shields out-of-state defendants who gather data nationwide but do not deliberately funnel inaccurate reports into a specific forum. The ruling sharpens the doctrinal divide between foreseeability and purposeful availment, reinforces pleading discipline, and signals to plaintiffs and consumer-reporting agencies alike that jurisdictional arguments must be rooted in demonstrable, targeted conduct—not merely in the incidental reach of modern information flows.

Going forward, litigants should anticipate needing concrete evidence—emails, contracts, distribution lists—showing that a defendant knew and intended its tortious acts to impact the forum. Without such proof, courts in the Fifth Circuit (and likely others that find the reasoning persuasive) will continue to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, even where the alleged harm is substantial.