Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
The Supreme Court ruled that California courts could not hear claims against Bristol-Myers Squibb brought by out-of-state plaintiffs who were not prescribed, did not buy, and were not injured by the company's drug Plavix in California.
The decision rejects a looser 'sliding scale' approach some courts used to justify jurisdiction based on a company's broad business presence, and instead requires a real connection between the specific claims and the forum state — a limit expected to affect how mass lawsuits against nationwide companies can be filed and consolidated.
“What is needed is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.”
The core requirement the majority says was missing for the nonresident plaintiffs' claims.
How it got here: California trial and appellate courts allowed the nonresidents' claims to proceed; the California Supreme Court affirmed, and BMS asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
More than 600 people, most living outside California, sued pharmaceutical maker Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in California state court, claiming its blood-thinning drug Plavix had damaged their health. BMS, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, sold Plavix in California but did not develop, manufacture, or label the drug there, and the out-of-state plaintiffs were not prescribed or injured by Plavix in California.
The question before the Court
Could California courts hear lawsuits against a drug company from people who were never sold, prescribed, or injured by the drug in California?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that California courts could not hear the nonresident plaintiffs' claims against Bristol-Myers Squibb. Specific jurisdiction requires an actual connection between the state and the specific claims being brought, not just a company's general business activity in that state. Because the out-of-state plaintiffs were never prescribed, never bought, and were never injured by Plavix in California, their claims had no real link to the state, even though other, California-based plaintiffs' identical claims could proceed there.
The Court rejected California's more flexible 'sliding scale' approach, which had let a company's broad, unrelated business presence substitute for a direct connection to the claims at issue. It also rejected the argument that BMS's contract with a California-based drug distributor was enough, since there was no evidence BMS acted jointly with that distributor in California or bore legal responsibility for its conduct there.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Companies that do business nationwide now have stronger protection against being sued in a single state by people from all over the country. Plaintiffs' lawyers who like to consolidate large groups of injured consumers in one favorable state court will have to split claims among home states or file in states where the company is legally 'at home,' making nationwide mass litigation harder and more expensive to bring.
What changes now
The California Supreme Court's ruling is reversed, and the case goes back for further proceedings consistent with this decision, meaning the nonresident plaintiffs' claims cannot proceed in California courts on the theory used below. The Court left open whether the same limits apply to lawsuits filed in federal court, and noted that plaintiffs could still sue together in states where BMS is 'at home,' such as New York or Delaware, or in their own home states.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly left open whether the same due-process limits on state-court jurisdiction apply to federal courts under the Fifth Amendment. It also did not decide how its ruling affects class actions where an in-state plaintiff represents a nationwide class including people injured elsewhere.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
“It will make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who are "at home" in different States.”The dissent's warning about the practical effect of the ruling on mass litigation.
Justice Sotomayor argued the majority's ruling would make it far harder for injured people to band together and sue a nationwide company in one consolidated state-court action, forcing costly, piecemeal litigation across many states. She contended the claims were sufficiently related to BMS's California conduct because all plaintiffs, resident and nonresident alike, were injured by the same nationwide marketing and distribution scheme, and that fairness—the traditional touchstone of jurisdiction—did not require the majority's result. She would have upheld jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that state courts can exercise two kinds of personal jurisdiction over a defendant: general jurisdiction (where a company is essentially 'at home,' letting it be sued there on any claim) and specific jurisdiction (which requires the lawsuit itself to arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with that particular state).
- Because the parties agreed BMS was not 'at home' in California, the case turned entirely on specific jurisdiction, which requires an actual link between the state and the specific claims at issue, not just a company's general business activity there.
- The Court rejected the California Supreme Court's 'sliding scale' approach, under which extensive but unrelated contacts with the state could lower the bar for showing a connection to the claims — reasoning that this approach functioned as a disguised, looser version of general jurisdiction that the Court's precedents do not permit.
- Applying its settled test, the Court found no adequate link between California and the nonresident plaintiffs' claims: they were not prescribed, did not buy, and were not injured by Plavix in California, and the fact that other plaintiffs were injured by the same product in California did not create the needed connection for their claims.
- The Court also rejected reliance on BMS's contract with a California-based distributor, McKesson, because there was no allegation that BMS acted together with McKesson in California or was legally responsible for McKesson's conduct there, so that contract alone could not support jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims.
- Having found no adequate link between the forum and the nonresidents' claims, the Court concluded specific jurisdiction over those claims was lacking, regardless of how extensive BMS's unrelated activities in California were.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Daimler AG v. Bauman (571 U. S. ___)
The Court relied on Daimler's limits on general jurisdiction as settled law underlying this decision.
Distinguishes Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. (465 U. S. 770)
The Court said Keeton involved in-state injury to a forum resident, unlike this case.
Distinguishes Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (472 U. S. 797)
The Court said Shutts addressed plaintiffs' due process rights, not a defendant's jurisdictional objection.