Case: Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. v. Vermont, No. 25-909
Lower Court: Vermont
Docketed: 2026-02-03
Status: Pending
Question Presented: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a state court from exercising personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant unless that defendant has, among other things, sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum that relate to the plaintiff's claims. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945). Despite the central role that Internet-based businesses play in our economy, the Court has not addressed “whether and how a defendant’s virtual ‘presence’ and conduct ...
Vermont initially waived its right to respond to Meta’s cert petition, but the Court requested a response on February 18, 2026. Vermont then secured an extension to April 17, 2026. That sequence, a sua sponte call for a response after an initial waiver, suggests at least some Justices found the petition worth a closer look before the case reaches conference.
The Vermont Supreme Court held that Meta was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Vermont based on its advertising-revenue business model, even though Vermont’s claims do not concern that advertising activity. Petitioners, represented by Mark W. Mosier, argue that this approach severs the required link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims.
The legal question is whether purposeful availment can rest on a defendant’s general, forum-agnostic commercial model rather than specific conduct directed at the forum that relates to the claims at issue. The Court flagged this precise gap in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 n.9 (2014), noting it had not resolved how virtual conduct maps onto minimum contacts. NetChoice filed an amicus brief in support of the petition, signaling that the technology industry views the Vermont rule as a threat to predictable jurisdictional limits.
If the Court grants certiorari, the decision would supply long-overdue guidance on how International Shoe’s minimum-contacts framework applies to internet-based defendants whose services reach every state simultaneously. State attorneys general have shown growing interest in suing large platforms at home; a ruling that requires claim-specific forum contacts would constrain that strategy considerably.