While the local operators of yahoo.fr added warnings for users and worked to take down some listings for Nazi memorabilia, Yahoo!

's refusal to pay the fine was a violation of the Hague Convention, which requires international cooperation to settle war crimes (with the Nazis as the criminals), LICRA contacted the United States Marshals Service and suggested that the Marshals should enforce the ruling of the French court, by collecting the daily fine from Yahoo!

Then the district court ruled against LICRA's motion to dismiss the suit, effectively agreeing with Yahoo!

The question before the Ninth Circuit was whether it and other American courts have jurisdiction over LICRA as a French organization requesting law enforcement action in the United States.

Applying the Calder Test on determining personal jurisdiction in international legal disputes, the circuit court ruled that LICRA's request would not require significant actions by Yahoo!

The circuit court avoided any discussion of the morality of buying and selling Nazi memorabilia or France's motivations in suppressing that type of business activity.

[1] The ruling has been cited as an important early precedent in efforts by governments to regulate the Internet at the international level, when trying to maintain democratic or cultural norms.

[4] The continuing confusion over the ability of one nation to regulate the users and designers of a foreign website, which by definition is accessible around the world via the World Wide Web, was widely discussed by regulators and experts due to the outcome of this case.