The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that an out-of-state bank cannot be hauled into Alabama courts simply because an Alabama resident viewed the bank’s website and relied on its compliance statements.
In Ex parte GBC International Bank, the Court granted mandamus relief to a California bank, reinforcing that passive website content alone does not create personal jurisdiction.
The $60,000 Wire Transfer
Michael Straus, an Alabama resident, wired $60,000 in May 2023 to an account at GBC International Bank, a California corporation.
The account belonged to Apex Oil and Gas Trading, LLC. According to Straus, Apex failed to provide promised services and then “withdrew the funds from its account with GBC and disappeared, absconding with Straus’s money.” By November 2023, GBC had closed Apex’s account and severed its relationship with the company.
Straus filed suit against GBC in Jefferson Circuit Court in May 2024, claiming negligence and wantonness. He alleged that GBC had closed Apex’s account because “it knew that Apex was engaged in fraud or other criminal activities facilitated by GBC.”
Central to his argument was a statement on GBC’s website about compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Website Statement at Issue
Straus claimed he relied on the following statement when choosing to wire money to the account at GBC:
“Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT ACT requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account or changes an existing account. This federal requirement applies to all new customers and current customers. This information is used to assist the United States government in the fight against the funding of terrorism and money-laundering activities.”
Straus argued that by posting this compliance statement on its website, GBC had purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Alabama and should have foreseen being sued here if it failed to prevent fraud.
The Circuit Court’s Initial Ruling
The Jefferson Circuit Court denied GBC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that GBC’s website statements about federal law compliance “would give rise to a claim in Alabama” and that this met due process requirements for specific jurisdiction.
GBC then petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Justice Bryan, writing for a unanimous court, applied well-established principles about personal jurisdiction and website contacts.
The Court noted that for specific personal jurisdiction to exist, a defendant must have “purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Alabama.”
GBC’s Lack of Alabama Contacts
Through an affidavit from its executive vice president, GBC established that it:
- Had never been incorporated or registered to do business in Alabama
- Had never solicited deposits from Alabama
- Maintained no property, assets, or employees in Alabama
- Had never engaged in Alabama-specific marketing or advertising
- Currently had no deposit accounts for Alabama residents
This showing shifted the burden to Straus to prove GBC had purposefully directed activities toward Alabama.
The Passive Website Problem
The Court emphasized precedent holding that passive website content viewable by anyone with internet access cannot establish personal jurisdiction. Citing Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., the Court noted that “evidence of mere placement of advertisements in nationally distributed papers or journals does not rise to the level of purposeful contact.”
Justice Bryan explained that GBC’s compliance statements were “passive in nature” – the website served “as little more than an electronic billboard for the posting of information.” The company “cannot be said to have purposefully directed its representations specifically at one state.”
The Unilateral Activity Rule
Critically, the Court found that Straus initiated the single transaction by unilaterally deciding to wire money to the GBC account. The purposeful availment requirement “assures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction as a result of the unilateral activity of another person.”
Implications for Online Banking and E-Commerce
This decision has significant implications for online banking and e-commerce in Alabama:
- Website Compliance Statements: General statements about federal law compliance on a company’s website do not create jurisdiction in every state where the site can be viewed.
- Passive vs. Interactive Websites: The Court maintains the distinction between passive websites that merely post information and interactive sites that engage in transactions with specific states.
- Customer-Initiated Transactions: When an Alabama resident initiates a transaction with an out-of-state company, that alone does not subject the company to Alabama jurisdiction.
The ruling protects businesses from being sued in any state where their website can be accessed, requiring more substantial contacts for jurisdiction.
The Procedural Wrinkle
The Court also addressed a procedural issue regarding Straus’s response to GBC’s motion. Straus filed a “declaration” rather than a proper affidavit, lacking notarization.
While the Court suggested this unsworn declaration should not have been considered as evidence, it concluded that even if considered, the declaration failed to establish jurisdiction.
Broader Context for Financial Institutions
This case arrives at a time when online banking relationships increasingly cross state lines. The decision provides clarity that:
- Banks need not defend lawsuits in every state where customers access their websites.
- General compliance statements do not constitute targeting specific states.
- Federal banking regulations do not automatically create state court jurisdiction.
For Alabama consumers dealing with out-of-state financial institutions, the ruling means they may need to pursue claims in the institution’s home state or federal court, rather than Alabama state courts.
The Court’s Conclusion
The Supreme Court granted GBC’s mandamus petition and directed the circuit court to dismiss Straus’s complaint.
The decision reaffirms that in the digital age, mere website accessibility does not equate to purposeful business conduct in a state.
Justice Bryan concluded: “Even if the circuit court could have properly considered Straus’s unsworn declaration asserting that he had relied on representations appearing on GBC’s website when deciding to wire money to an account maintained by GBC, those general representations made on GBC’s website that were viewable by anyone with access to the Internet are insufficient to support the circuit court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.”
Let Justice Roll, With Baxley Maniscalco
When dealing with out-of-state companies, online transactions, or complex jurisdictional questions, you need attorneys who understand both the evolving digital landscape and Alabama’s specific legal requirements.
Our experienced attorneys here at Baxley Maniscalco can help you navigate these challenging issues and determine the proper forum for your claims.
Our team stays current with Alabama Supreme Court decisions that impact consumer rights and business litigation. We understand how jurisdiction rules affect your ability to seek justice and can advise whether your case belongs in Alabama courts, federal court, or another state’s jurisdiction.
With the increasing complexity of interstate commerce and online banking, having knowledgeable legal counsel is essential to protecting your rights.If you’ve been harmed by an out-of-state company’s actions or need guidance on jurisdictional issues in your case, don’t assume you’re without recourse.
Contact Baxley Maniscalco today.
