Ligue contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme et Union des étudiants juifs de France c. Yahoo!
Some observers have claimed that the judgement creates a universal competence for French courts to decide Internet cases.
Criminal proceedings were also brought in the French courts against Yahoo!, Inc. and its then president Timothy Koogle; the defendants were acquitted on all charges, a verdict that was upheld on appeal.
were allowing their online auction service to be used for the sale of memorabilia from the Nazi period, contrary to Article R645-1 of the French Criminal Code.
It was claimed that there were no technical means to prevent French residents from participating in these auctions, at least without placing the company in financial difficulty and compromising the existence of the Internet.
The court specifically dismissed the claim that the alleged problems of enforcing a judgment were sufficient to nullify its competence.
Inc. had been ordered on May 22, 2000 to take all appropriate measures to deter and prevent access to auctions of Nazi memorabilia on its site by French residents.
The report of the court-appointed experts noted that, as of 2000, roughly 70% of French Internet users could be identified as such by the use of DNS databases.
Inc. must comply with the original injunction within three months or face a fine of one hundred thousand (100,000) francs (15,244.90 EUR) per day.
On August 23, 2004, the Ninth Circuit reversed the earlier holding, after finding that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the appellants, namely LICRA and UEJF.
The court quoted the following criteria for the establishment of personal jurisdiction as stated in an earlier Ninth Circuit case, Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc.: Exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with these requirements of "minimum contacts" and "fair play and substantial justice" where (1) the non-resident defendant has purposefully directed his activities or consummated some transaction with the forum or a resident thereof, or performed some act by which he purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.