  The unique challenge presented by the Internet is that compliance with local
laws is rarely sufficient to assure a business that it has limited its exposure
to legal risk. The paper identifies why the challenge of adequately accounting
for the legal risk arising from Internet jurisdiction has been aggravated in
recent years by the adoption of the Zippo legal framework, commonly referred to
as the passive versus active test. The test provides parties with only limited
guidance and often results in detrimental judicial decisions from a policy
perspective. Given the inadequacies of the Zippo passive versus active test,
the paper argues that it is now fitting to identify a more effective standard
for determining when it is appropriate to assert jurisdiction in cases
involving predominantly Internet-based contacts. The solution submitted in the
paper is to move toward a targeting-based analysis. Unlike the Zippo approach,
a targeting analysis would seek to identify the intentions of the parties and
to assess the steps taken to either enter or avoid a particular jurisdiction.
Targeting would also lessen the reliance on effects-based analysis, the source
of considerable uncertainty since Internet-based activity can ordinarily be
said to create some effects in most jurisdictions. To identify the appropriate
criteria for a targeting test, the paper recommends returning to the core
jurisdictional principle -- foreseeability. Foreseeability in the targeting
context depends on three factors -- contracts, technology, and actual or
implied knowledge.
