Court Dismisses TCPA Case Against ActBlue Defendants Over Jurisdiction

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Kin Wah Kung against the Democratic National Committee and other defendants, primarily due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The case, which revolved around unwanted political text messages, was filed in the District of Columbia but has highlighted the complexities of establishing jurisdiction in legal proceedings.

Kung, a resident of California, brought the case against the Democratic National Committee, four politicians, a state political party, and two campaign committees in early 2024. He alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) stemming from unsolicited political messages he received in the months leading up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Following a settlement with some parties, Kung continued his pursuit against the remaining defendants, collectively known as the “ActBlue” defendants.

Shortly after the lawsuit was initiated, the ActBlue defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a legal term that refers to a court’s authority to make decisions affecting a party involved in a lawsuit. Without it, a court must dismiss the case.

In examining the issue, the court noted that under federal law, specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, personal jurisdiction can be categorized as either general or specific. General jurisdiction applies to defendants who are domiciled or maintain a principal place of business in the forum state. In this instance, the ActBlue defendants were incorporated in Massachusetts and did not meet these criteria, leading to a conclusion that general jurisdiction could not be established.

Turning to specific jurisdiction, the court assessed the D.C. long-arm statute, D.C. Code § 13-423(a), which allows jurisdiction under certain conditions. Kung needed to demonstrate that the ActBlue defendants had sufficient “minimum contacts” within the District of Columbia to justify the lawsuit. This could include transacting business, contracting services, or causing injury within the district.

Kung contended that the ActBlue defendants did business in the District of Columbia, as some entities associated with them had registered there. However, the court ruled that this alone was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The court required Kung to provide a clear connection between the defendants’ business activities in the district and the text messages he received while residing in California.

The court found that Kung had not articulated a valid theory linking the defendants’ actions in D.C. to his claims. Even though he could have claimed tortious injury under the relevant statutes, he failed to substantiate this assertion. The ActBlue defendants operated primarily as a donation platform, and Kung did not prove how this was related to the unsolicited texts he received.

In a final attempt to salvage his case, Kung requested the court allow him to conduct discovery to establish personal jurisdiction. The court denied this request, stating Kung had not demonstrated a legitimate basis for further investigation into his jurisdictional claims, which were deemed too vague and speculative.

The ruling not only dismissed Kung’s complaint against the ActBlue defendants but also underscored the importance of understanding personal jurisdiction in legal proceedings. Kung represented himself in this case, and experts suggest that engaging experienced legal counsel could have helped him navigate the complexities of jurisdictional law more effectively.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of personal jurisdiction in lawsuits and how early intervention by defendants can often lead to favorable outcomes. The dismissal was granted without prejudice, meaning Kung retains the right to file the case again in a proper jurisdiction, should he choose to do so.