Glock v. Pilz [1]

On February 21, 2006, Austrian politician Peter Pilz posted comments on his (Austrian) website about Glock pistols making their way to the black market in Turkey. Der Standard, a German-language newspaper, reported on Pilz's statements in its print and online editions.

On April 6, 2006, Glock sued Pilz, Der Standard, and a number of co-defendants for defamation in Indiana state court. Glock read Pilz's comments as accusing it of conspiring with Kiesler Police Supply, a company based in Indiana, to sell more pistols in Iraq than were necessary in order to supply a black market in Turkey. (The district court noted in its order dismissing the action that a more plausible reading of the article is that the Austrian government was to blame for not better managing the supply of Austrian pistols.)

On May 9, 2006, Bronner Online AG and Der Standard removed the lawsuit to federal court. Glock settled with Sperlich, Pickl-Herk, and Freiler in June 2006.

In March 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It concluded that to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Austrian defendants would violate the Due Process Clause. Summing up the situation well, the court wrote:

As an aside on the international context, the court notes how extraordinary and problematic finding personal jurisdiction in this situation would be. Pilz is a member of the Austrian Parliament writing about what is arguably a matter of policy of the Austrian government; Der Standard is a newspaper that reported on Pilz's views. Today almost everything written down ends up on the internet in one form or another. Does the Due Process Clause allow the internet to transform American courts into worldwide speech regulators every time an American entity gets mentioned? That is doubtful, but essentially what Plaintiff argues.

The court dismissed the action with respect to all the remaining defendants.