United States: Daimler AG v. Bauman: In Latest ATS Decision, The Supreme Court Limits Jurisdiction Of U.S. Courts Over Multinational Corporations

Last Updated: January 22 2014
Article by Vivek Krishnamurthy

A sweeping decision by the Supreme Court on January 14 has further restricted the circumstances under which plaintiffs may sue multinational corporations in U.S. courts for harms occurring outside the United States.

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an attempt by twenty-two Argentinian plaintiffs to sue the German automaker in California for the alleged role of its Argentinian subsidiary in the deaths, kidnappings, torture, and wrongful detention of certain of its employees during that country's notorious "Dirty War."

The outcome of this case is not surprising given the Court's ruling last year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), that there must be "some relevant conduct" in the United States for a corporation to be answerable under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. §1350, for its alleged role in human rights abuses perpetrated abroad. What is a surprise, however, is that in deciding this case, the Court substantially tightened the law of jurisdiction in both U.S. federal and state courts as it applies to large corporations.

Decisions of the Lower Courts

The central issue in the Supreme Court's ruling was whether a federal District Court in California had jurisdiction to hear its claims against Daimler AG (Daimler) – the German parent corporation of Mercedes-Benz Argentina, which is alleged to have committed the human rights abuses – based on the activities in that state of Daimler's American subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA). Even before the Supreme Court released its decision in Kiobel, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit, ruling that the relationship between Daimler and MBUSA did not support the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over Daimler in this case.

Despite the intervening release of the Kiobel judgment, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled on appeal that the activities of MBUSA could be attributed to Daimler for jurisdictional purposes. The Ninth Circuit so ruled because in its view, MBUSA acts as Daimler's all-purpose agent in California by performing "services that are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation's own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services."

The Supreme Court's Decision

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that this lawsuit, which "involves foreign plaintiffs suing a foreign defendant based on foreign conduct," did not belong in the U.S. based on the presumption announced in Kiobel against the extraterritorial application of the ATS. The Argentinian plaintiffs did not allege that MBUSA played any role in the abuses committed by Mercedes-Benz Argentina, nor did they allege that Daimler itself engaged in any "relevant conduct" in the United States that contributed to the human rights abuses suffered by the plaintiffs. Hence there was no "relevant conduct" in the United States that could serve to overcome the Kiobel presumption, regardless of whether the courts in California possessed jurisdiction over Daimler.

While Justice Sotomayor would have disposed of the case on these limited grounds, Justice Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by the seven other members of the Court, went further in holding that Daimler did not have sufficient "affiliations" with California to subject it to the general jurisdiction of the courts of that state.

The Law of Jurisdiction

Since the mid 20th century, the law of jurisdiction in the United States has recognized a distinction between general jurisdiction based on a corporation's physical presence in a state, and specific jurisdiction based on its "purposeful availment" of the privilege of doing business in a state.

The difference between the two forms of jurisdiction is best illustrated through some examples. The courts in California possess general jurisdiction over all corporations "at home" in that state, meaning that they may entertain all claims against such corporations arising from their activities anywhere in the world. Hence the courts in California may hear a discrimination claim brought by an employee of a Silicon Valley software company's office in Bangalore. By contrast, if a Dutch corporation's only connection to California is that third-party retailers in that state sell its bicycles in some volume, the California courts will possess only specific jurisdiction over the Dutch corporation to entertain specific claims arising from that activity, such as a products liability suit alleging that the bicycles are defectively designed.

In the Daimler case, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit was not based on any activity by Daimler or its subsidiaries in California, the courts in that state could only hear the case if they possessed general jurisdiction over the parent corporation. Even assuming that the Ninth Circuit was correct to attribute MBUSA's activities in California to Daimler in deciding the jurisdictional question, Justice Ginsburg found that "there would still be no basis to subject Daimler to general jurisdiction in California." Justice Ginsburg so held based on the Supreme Court's decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. __ (2011), a case dealing with the reverse question of when the jurisdictional contacts of a parent company can be attributed to a subsidiary.

In Goodyear, the Supreme Court held unanimously that "[a] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." The paradigmatic examples of "continuous and systematic" affiliations are for a corporation to either be incorporated or to maintain its principal place of business in a state. There may, of course, be other "continuous and systematic" affiliations that could form the basis for general jurisdiction, but given that MBUSA is neither incorporated in California nor maintains its principal place of business there, Justice Ginsburg ruled that it would be "exorbitant" for courts in that state to exercise general jurisdiction over Daimler in such circumstances.

Justice Sotomayor concurred in the majority's judgment dismissing the case, but she disagreed vehemently with the logic of Justice Ginsburg's ruling. In her view, the majority deems Daimler "too big for general jurisdiction" by asking the wrong question. Instead of examining the absolute magnitude of Daimler's contacts with California, the majority considers the "relative magnitude of those contacts in comparison to the defendant's contacts with other states" in determining where it is "at home."

In Justice Sotomayor's view, the fact that California accounts for 2.4% of Daimler's global sales (some $4.6 billion per year), combined with the many facilities that MBUSA maintains in that state, might well be sufficient to render Daimler "at home" in the Golden State. By contrast, requiring a corporation to have contacts with a state akin to incorporation or a head office to establish general jurisdiction "shift[s] the risk of loss from multinational corporations to the individuals harmed by their actions" by preventing consumers from filing suit where they are at home. Justice Sotomayor cites the example of a person maimed by the negligence of a global hotel chain while vacationing abroad being unable to file suit in the state where they live, despite the fact that the corporation does billions of dollars of business there, because the corporation is neither incorporated nor headquartered there. According to Justice Sotomayor, not only is this result inconsistent with the law as it has been for decades, but it is also fundamentally unfair.

The Effect of the Supreme Court's Decision

What was widely expected to be an important decision regarding the scope of the ATS has instead turned out to be a landmark ruling on the much more general question of when large, complex corporations may be sued in U.S. courts. The Supreme Court's ruling does not change the fact that multinationals can be sued in any U.S. state in connection to claims arising from business they have conducted in a particular state, but lawsuits arising from all other situations can now only be brought in the limited number of states where the multinational can be considered to be "at home."

The true impact of the decision ruling will ultimately depend on how the lower federal courts decide that a corporation is "at home" in a state when it is neither incorporated nor headquartered there. If it turns out that large corporations, like wealthy individuals, can have many homes across the United States, the impact of Daimler may turn out to be more muted than it first appears.

To view Foley Hoag's Corporate Social Responsibility Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions