The case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc. addresses an important question that emerged as courts began applying traditional personal-jurisdiction principles to conduct occurring on the internet. As online activity expanded, courts increasingly faced the challenge of determining when a business located in one state could be sued in another state merely because content posted on the internet was viewable nationwide.
This case provides a clear rule: merely placing material on the internet is not enough to create personal jurisdiction. Instead, jurisdiction exists only when the defendant directs electronic activity into the forum state with the intent to conduct business and that activity gives rise to the cause of action.
This decision remains a frequently cited authority in internet-jurisdiction disputes because it attempts to balance state interests in regulating harmful online activity with fairness to out-of-state defendants who engage in limited or passive online operations.
Facts of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc.
In ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., the plaintiff, ALS Scan, Inc., was a Maryland-based company that owned copyrighted photographs. A third-party company, Alternative Products, Inc., created and operated a website where it posted these photographs without authorization. Users could access the images only by paying a fee.
Alternative Products did not host the website on its own servers. Instead, it used services provided by the defendant, Digital Service Consultants, Inc., which was an internet service provider (ISP) located in Georgia. Digital Service Consultants hosted Alternative Products’ web operations and enabled the company to upload the copyrighted images.
ALS Scan filed a lawsuit in Maryland alleging copyright infringement. The claim asserted that Digital Service Consultants should also be held responsible because, as the ISP hosting the infringing material, it allowed Alternative Products to distribute the copyrighted photographs online.
Digital Service Consultants challenged the suit by arguing that Maryland lacked personal jurisdiction. It emphasized that it was a Georgia corporation, did not conduct business in Maryland, and had no offices, employees, or direct commercial contacts within the state. Its only involvement was providing internet hosting services to a third-party client located outside Maryland.
ALS Scan countered that the defendant’s internet services enabled users in Maryland (and anywhere else) to access the infringing photographs. Because the effects of the infringement were felt in Maryland, ALS Scan argued that this was sufficient for Maryland courts to assert jurisdiction.
The district court disagreed with ALS Scan and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. ALS Scan then appealed.
Issue
The key issue in ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc. was:
Whether a state (Maryland) may assert personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant (a Georgia-based ISP) solely because the defendant’s services enabled the posting of copyrighted content on a website accessible within the state.
Put simply, the question was whether internet availability alone, without targeted activity directed toward Maryland, created sufficient contacts for a Maryland court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
Application of the Rule
The court examined Digital Service Consultants’ actions and determined that the company’s conduct did not meet the standard for asserting jurisdiction in Maryland. Several important points led to this conclusion:
No purposeful direction toward Maryland
The defendant had not purposefully targeted Maryland residents. It merely provided internet hosting services to a third-party client located elsewhere. The defendant did not advertise in Maryland, did not operate servers in Maryland, and did not tailor its services toward Maryland users. The connection to Maryland was indirect and incidental.
The defendant did not control the infringing content
The copyrighted photos were uploaded by Alternative Products, not by Digital Service Consultants. The defendant did not create, curate, or manage the content. The only act it performed was enabling the hosting of the website. Because of this, its role was considered passive and not deliberately aimed at Maryland.
Internet accessibility alone is insufficient
The court rejected the argument that “because Maryland residents could access the infringing content, Maryland courts had jurisdiction.” Allowing jurisdiction based solely on internet access would essentially expose every ISP and website operator to lawsuits in all 50 states, a result the court viewed as unfair and inconsistent with due-process principles.
No evidence of business activity directed into Maryland
There was no indication that Digital Service Consultants sought customers, generated revenue, advertised, or otherwise engaged in purposeful business activity within Maryland. Without such targeted conduct, the necessary minimum-contacts requirement could not be met.
Through this reasoning, the court concluded that the requirements for personal jurisdiction were not satisfied.
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc. Judgment
The court held that ALS Scan could not establish personal jurisdiction over Digital Service Consultants in Maryland. It affirmed that:
- Posting information on the internet that happens to be accessible in the forum state does not amount to purposeful activity directed at that state.
- Electronic activity establishes jurisdiction only when it is specifically targeted at the forum state and the cause of action arises from that directed activity.
Thus, the court ruled in favor of the defendant and upheld the dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., the court clarified that internet accessibility alone is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. The defendant must deliberately direct its electronic activity toward the forum state, and that activity must relate directly to the claim. Because Digital Service Consultants did none of these things, Maryland lacked jurisdiction.
This ruling represents an important step in shaping the law of internet jurisdiction and continues to influence how courts evaluate the reach of state authority in online-related cases.