Richardson v Schwarzenegger was an internet defamation case heard in the English High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division), on 29 October 2004.

Claimant Anna Richardson, a British television presenter, claimed to have been libelled in the 2 October 2003 issue of the US publication Los Angeles Times, which was available in print and online in the UK, as a result of statements made by the gubernatorial campaign manager of Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-American actor and politician.

The claimant, Anna Richardson, made no claims against the authors of the allegedly defamatory Los Angeles Times article, nor against the publishers of the paper.

Walsh's attorney, Richard Spearman, described the case as follows: … This case is about whether a spokesman for a foreign politician in a local election campaign who was asked by a foreign newspaper to respond on behalf of the foreign electoral candidate to allegations concerning the past conduct of that candidate, and he provided a response that is immune from suit under local law and is protected by qualified privilege under our system in circumstances where malice is not and could not reasonably be alleged, should nevertheless be amenable to the exorbitant jurisdiction of the English court ...Walsh's application to set aside an order giving the claimant permission to serve her claim had previously been refused by a lower court and was the subject of the present appeal before Mr. Justice Eady of the High Court of Justice.

Unlike the Calder v. Jones test, however, the High Court did not find it necessary for Walsh to have "directly targeted" the UK, but reasoned that jurisdiction was proper because it was "arguable that the foreign politician intended or foresaw the consequences".