Opinion by Judge Ferguson,

Appellants La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme (“LICRA”) and L’Union Des Etudiants Juifs De France (« UEJF ») appeal the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Yahoo !
Inc. (« Yahoo ! »). Appellants contend that the District Court should have abstained from the hearing the case. The Court of Appeal holds that there was no personal jurisdiction over Appellants and reverses the District Court.

The French court’s determination that Yahoo ! was in violation of French law may not be reviewed by any
U.S.
court. Yahoo !, however, contends that enforcement of the French court’s judgment in the
United States
would violate Yahoo ! ‘s First Amendment rights. This constitutional claim would presumably be reviewable by any
U.S.
court able to assert jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF.

Jurisdiction may be obtained, and the First Amendment claim heard, once LICRA and UEJF ask a U.S district court to enforce the French judgment. As of yet, the organizations have declined to do so. Rather than wait for the French parties to take action, Yahoo ! requested the District Court below to issue a declaratory judgment that enforcement of the French order by
U.S.
officials would be unconstitutional. The District Court held that it did have personal jurisdiction over LICRA and EUJF.

The Court of Appeal reviews this exercise of personal jurisdiction de novo.

France
is within its rights as a sovereign nation to enact hate speech laws against the distribution of Nazi propaganda in response to its terrible experience with Nazi propaganda in response to its terrible experience with Nazi forces during World War II. Similarly, LICRA and UEJF are within their rights to bring suit in
France
against Yahoo ! for violation of French speech law. The only adverse consequence experienced by Yahoo ! as a result of the acts with which the Court of Appeal is concerned is that Yahoo ! must wait for LICRA and UEJF to come to the
United States
to enforce the French judgment before it is able to raise its First Amendment claim. However, it was not wrongful for the French organizations to place Yahoo ! in this position.

The French court has already upheld LICRA and UEJF’s position with respect to French law. The Court knows that LICRA and UEJF were acting to uphold their legitimate rights under the French law. The Circuit judges cannot say here that the parties did anything wrongful, sufficient for a finding of “express aiming”, in bringing this suit against Yahoo !.

Yahoo !
obtains commercial advantage from the fact that users located in
France
are able to access its website ; in fact, the company displays advertising banners in French to those users whom it identifies as French. Yahoo ! cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs – one of which is that, if Yahoo ! violates the speech laws of another nation, it must wait for the foreign litigants to come to the United States to enforce the judgment before its First Amendment claim may be heard by a U.S. court.

LICRA and UEJF took action to enforce their legal rights under French law. Yahoo ! makes no allegation that could lead a court to conclude that there was anything wrongful in the organizations conduct. As a result, the District Court did not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over LICRA and UEJF. Because the District Court had no personal jurisdiction over the French parties, the Court of Appeal does not review whether Yahoo ! ‘s action for declaratory relief was ripe for adjudication or whether the District Court properly refused to abstain from the hearing this case.

REVERSED  

Source
:
United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth circuit Yahoo !
Inc, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. La ligue Contre Le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme, a French association ; L’Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, a French association, Defendants-Appellants , N°01-17424 D.C. N° CV-00-21275-JF OPINION

Article mis en ligne le 8 octobre 2004