The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. Lufthansa expands district courts’ jurisdiction over foreign airlines. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, booked round-trip flights from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco through Lufthansa, headquartered in Germany but regularly operating flights in and out of California. The plaintiffs allege that Lufthansa staff in Saudi Arabia singled out the couple’s marital status, demanded personal documents, and disclosed their relationship to Saudi authorities, creating grave risks in a country where same-sex relationships are criminalized. The couple brought claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress in California. The district court initially dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that the conduct alleged occurred abroad.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that all three prongs of the “minimum contacts” test were met. First, Lufthansa purposefully availed itself of the California forum because it contracted to transport the plaintiffs into the state; the purposeful direction test was also met because plaintiffs allege additional injuries which occurred on the flight to San Francisco and thus “extended into California.” Second, Lufthansa’s forum-related activities arose out of and related to plaintiffs’ claims—the contract claims were based on a contract for carriage into California and the tort claims arose out of that contract. Third, defendant did not make a “compelling case” that jurisdiction in California would be unreasonable.

Judge Milan D. Smith dissented, warning that this interpretation “has wide-reaching implications,” essentially permitting lawsuits in the destination state for any airline interaction, regardless of where the alleged conduct occurred. He cautioned that most of the relevant conduct occurred outside of the United States and that allowing suit in California risked overreach and friction with foreign governments.

International carriers should take note: actively booking passengers into the U.S. can expose foreign companies to litigation in American courts, even if the alleged wrongdoings happen overseas.