United States: Can A Foreign Defendant's Conduct Satisfy The FTAIA But Not The Due Process Clause?

Last Updated: March 23 2017
Article by Antitrust Watch

Authored by Robert Reznick and David M. Goldstein

In Sullivan v. Barclays PLC,1 Judge P. Kevin Castel, of the Southern District of New York, raised an interesting point regarding the relationship between the viability of antitrust claims subject to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (FTAIA) and constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction: The FTAIA "arguably may apply a less-exacting standard than the due process threshold to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant."2  In other words, even though the standard for the FTAIA might be met to allow an antitrust claim to proceed against a foreign defendant, the court nonetheless might not be able to assert personal jurisdiction.  The question whether the FTAIA should be read more strictly than has been the case to conform to due process requirements, or that foreign defendants should be more diligent in challenging personal jurisdiction, are interesting ones that warrant further analysis.

Sullivan is a purported class action involving allegations that a number of banks—many foreign—conspired to manipulate the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor"), a benchmark used in price or payment terms for certain financial instruments.  Judge Castel's decision on defendants' motion to dismiss principally addressed issues of standing, personal jurisdiction, and whether the complaint alleged a plausible restraint of trade and injury.3  The Court ultimately found that complaint alleged no facts supporting the assertion of personal jurisdiction against a group of foreign defendants and dismissed them from the case.

The Court addressed the FTAIA only in passing, noting pointedly that the defendants devoted less than a page to it and finding that the specific arguments advanced by the defendants were not well-founded.4  In a footnote, though, Judge Castel suggested, seemingly sua sponte, that the FTAIA standard for domestic effects may be "less exacting" than required by due process for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction.5  And, indeed, Judge Castel found that although plaintiffs' claims against the foreign defendants were not blocked by the FTAIA, the complaint's allegations did not establish personal jurisdiction over them.

The Court's observation regarding the potentially different standards was explained only through a "See generally" citation to Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org.,6 a case involving personal jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S. C. § 2333(a).  In Waldman, the Second Circuit observed that personal jurisdiction over a defendant alleged to have committed intentional torts would be consistent with the Due Process Clause if the defendant had "expressly aimed" or "target[ed]" its actions at the United States; an allegation that an injury in this country may merely have been the "foreseeable" result of foreign conduct was inadequate.7  Judge Castel was apparently raising the question whether the "reasonably foreseeable" prong of the "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable" test for non-import commerce under the FTAIA might likewise be inadequate, standing alone, to support the assertion of personal jurisdiction.  He noted that the applicability of contemporary due process personal jurisdiction requirements to cases brought under the FTAIA had not been explored in any published decision, and he concluded he did not need to address it to decide the motion to dismiss.8

The question whether a claim found not to be blocked by the FTAIA might nonetheless be constitutionally infirm as to certain foreign defendants is an interesting one that should be explored when the facts warrant. As a threshold matter, the FTAIA generally is held not to be a jurisdictional statute, meaning that it merely describes an element of a claim that must be satisfied.9  Some may thus consider whether the FTAIA can be satisfied in cases where personal jurisdiction does not attach to be an academic curiosity.10  Further, and among other factors, parties will need to address aspects of the FTAIA that the Court in Sullivan had no occasion to address.

First, the FTAIA does not permit claims based on foreign conduct merely because the conduct causes a "foreseeable" injury in the United States.  The injury must also be "direct" and "substantial, and "give[] rise to" a violation of the antitrust laws.  Some may argue that these additional factors satisfy constitutional requirements, or incorporate them by reference.  At the very least (and given the importance of the U.S. market to many global transactions), they suggest that cases where FTAIA requirements are satisfied will often also be ones in which the required intentional conduct may be found.

Second, while the touchstone of specific personal jurisdiction remains the "minimum contacts" test laid out more than 70 years ago in International Shoe,11 courts have developed a multitude of articulations when applying the test to different situations, and the Sullivan court focused on just one.  Two principal tests are typically cited in the cases, designed to accommodate the contexts of tort and contract claims, respectively.  In tort cases, courts often apply the "effects test" described in Calder v. Jones12 examining whether a defendant has "purposefully directed" its conduct towards a forum; in contract cases, however, courts typically ask whether the defendant has "purposefully availed" itself of the benefits and protections of a forum's law.13  Antitrust cases frequently employ the "purposeful direction" standard, finding it is a better "fit" with facts.14  But the "purposeful availment" test has also been applied in antitrust cases, to facts focusing on the volume of business done with the forum.15  Certainly the question which formulation of the "minimum contacts" test should be applied in a given case—or whether both should16—is one best addressed in the context of real actions and real markets.

We await future decisions squarely analyzing the interplay between the standards for the FTAIA and personal jurisdiction, and recommend that practitioners pursue this issue aggressively until clarity is achieved.


1. No. 13-Civ-2811 (PKC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25756 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2017).

2. Id. at *68 n.13.

3. The opinion also contains an unusually detailed discussion of the requirement for antitrust standing that a plaintiff be an "efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws."

4. Id. at *68-69

5. Id. at *68 n.13.

6. 835 F.3d 317, 339 (2d Cir. 2016)

7. Id. at 339-340; see also Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2006).

8. Interestingly, the "targeting" of or an intent to affect U.S. markets has occasionally arisen in discussing the applicability of the FTAIA, but in connection with determining whether transactions are in U.S. "import" commerce, and thus outside the scope of the statute altogether. See, e.g., United States v. Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738, 755-56 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that conduct within "import commerce" exception was supported by conclusion that "intent" of the conspiracy was to affect U.S. pricing); Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462, 471 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2011) (whether "conduct is directed at a U.S. import market" relevant to applicability of import commerce exception); In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-03264-JD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136224, at *27 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) (finding that "import commerce" exception applied supported by allegation that conspiracy "focused" on U.S. market); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. C-13-1207 (RAJ), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54495, at *12 (Mar. 3, 2016) (citing Hsiung); In re TFT-LCD, No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132228, at *62-63 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014) ("intent to target" United States relevant to finding of "import commerce").

9. See, e.g., Hsuing, 778 F.3d at 751-53; Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Indus. Co. (Foxconn), 753 F.3d 395, 403-08 (2d Cir. 2014).

10. Larger questions about the scope of Congress' ability to address extraterritorial conduct may also exist. Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in the recent case of St. Patrick Baston v. United States, No. 16–5454, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 1569 (March 6, 2017), recently observed, for example, that the Supreme Court had not authoritatively described the scope of Congress' power to legislate under the Foreign Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

11. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

12. 465 U.S. 783 (1984).

13. See, e.g., Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir. 2010); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004).  In Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, 732 F.3d 161, 173 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit explained that the "effects test" is "typically invoked where . . . the conduct that forms the basis for the controversy occurs entirely out-of-forum, and the only relevant jurisdictional contacts with the forum are therefore in-forum effects harmful to the plaintiff."

14. In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 14-cv-03264-JD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76557, at *16-17 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015).

15. See In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 06-MD-1738, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100075, at *38 (E.D.N.Y July 17, 2012).

16. Cf. In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2676 (CRB), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1109, at *862-865 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017) (applying both "purposeful direction" and "purposeful availment" tests to securities law claim).

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.

Events from this Firm
22 Aug 2018, Webinar, New York, United States

On July 1, 2018, new regulations from California’s FEHC went into effect, clarifying protections from national origin discrimination.

5 Sep 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

This seminar will discuss a variety of topics concerning the responsibilities and conduct of gatekeepers and will provide practical advice dealing with the government’s increased policing of the activities of gatekeepers.

13 Sep 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment partners Tim Long and Erin Connell will be participating in PLI’s Cutting-Edge Employment Law Issues 2018: The California Difference.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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