I know the part owner of Armslist... I went to law school with him. He is from Pennsylvania, and moved here for law school.
Perhaps the immunity provided by 47 USC § 230 applies here?
Google the McDonald's coffee case and tell me if you REALLY think that is a win.
They can get a default judgment. Foreign judgments can be enforced if the proper steps are taken.
So do they collect on this judgement using the Commerce Clause somehow? Even if a judgement is entered, I fail to see how a private party in another state can recover damages if the company never does business withn that jurisdiction???
Most (if not all) states have a Comity Act that lays out the rules for enforcing a foreign judgment. Typically, if a judgment is valid in the jurisdiction in which it was rendered, provided it was the jurisdiction where the business took place or the agreement was entered into (whether physically or by legal fiction), the state courts will enforce it. So let's say you enter into a contract with a business in Florida (and yes, simply using a website is agreeing to its Terms), and the agreement states that the contract will be interpreted and enforced according to Nevada law. (Yes, I did add a third state.) If the judgment is legal in Nevada, then most likely its directly enforceable in both Oklahoma and Florida even if the outcome would have been different in those states.
However, here Armslist is not a party to the transaction (if I correctly understand the way Armslist works) and does not engage in practices that encourage illegal activities (such as a roommate selection site allowing you to set age, gender, and racial preferences and thus encouraging discriminatory housing arrangements). So they should be afforded the same immunity that any other Internet provider is that does not encourage illegal activities (such as an ISP not being liable for what their users download).
But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and I don't stay at Holiday Inn Express.
They can enter appearance in Cook County for the limited purpose of contesting jurisdiction, without actually consenting to it, and have a hearing on that issue before things proceed.
