The Texas Supreme Court recently considered whether a television broadcast that originates outside of Texas but travels into the state can support personal jurisdiction over the broadcaster in Texas.
The case, TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V., et al v. Gloria de Los Angeles Trevino Ruiz, No. 14-0186, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2016), had colorful background facts involving "Mexico's Madonna," Gloria de Los Angeles Trevino Ruiz. During the height of her fame in the late 1990s, Trevino was accused of criminal activity. She spent nearly five years in prison in both Brazil and Mexico. Her imprisonment ended when a Mexican judge dismissed all charges against her in 2004. Around the tenth anniversary of her acquittal, Mexican media outlets ran stories recounting the scandal. Trevino, who had since moved to Texas, viewed the broadcasts in Texas and sued a Mexican television producer, anchor and broadcaster for defamation. The broadcasters argued that their contacts with Texas were too attenuated to support personal jurisdiction because the broadcasts were produced in Mexico and concerned events that occurred in Mexico and Brazil. Trevino responded that the broadcasters directed a tort at her in Texas, broadcast statements in Texas, knew the statements would be broadcast in Texas and intentionally targeted the Texas market.
Although the Court found the totality of the evidence sufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over the broadcasters, the Court held that broadcasting into a forum state or injuring a resident of that state is not enough to sustain specific jurisdiction. Nor is a broadcaster's knowledge that its programs are received within the forum sufficient.
Instead, the record must show conduct establishing "an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum state." In TV Azteca, the Court held that the defendants had purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of their conduct in Texas, such that they could reasonably anticipate being sued in the state. Each of the defendants physically entered Texas, obtained advertising revenue from Texas and sought to distribute their broadcasts and increase their popularity in Texas. The broadcasters took "specific and substantial actions to take advantage of the fact that the signals reach[ed] into Texas and to financially benefit from that fact." Therefore, their contacts consisted of more than merely sending broadcasts into the state.
The lesson from TV Azteca? When faced with a broadcasting signal that appears to shine like a "Ray of Light" into the forum state, do not focus solely on whether the contact harmed a Texas resident or knowingly reached a Texas audience. Instead, ask whether the defendants' contacts also show that they also "Cherish" the forum by demonstrating "an intent or purpose to serve the [Texas] market."
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.
