In a recent trademark infringement case, Dakota Industries Inc. v. Ever Best Ltd., the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that due process allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over shareholders of a corporation where the shareholders benefitted sufficiently from and controlled the corporate defendant. The two shareholders who contested South Dakota's jurisdiction lived in Hong Kong and claimed that they did not meet the minimum contacts test "because they have never visited South Dakota and own no property there." They also claimed that they were not regularly involved in running the company's business of exporting jeans to the United States. Based on evidence that the shareholders inspected and arranged for the manufacture of the company's garments, discussed business with the third shareholder, arranged insurance for exporting the garments to the United States, and each owned one-third of the company, the court found that they "were extensively involved in manufacturing and selling the garments and reaping the economic benefits flowing from the sales." Noting that a physical presence is not required by due process, the court explained that a "seller in a distribution network that realizes economic benefit from multiple sales in distant forums purposefully avails itself to the forum states' jurisdiction." The court thus held that the exercise of jurisdiction met the due process requirements and therefore was proper, since South Dakota's long-arm statute is co-extensive with the due process clause.

The Dakota case represents the furthest stretching by a Federal Appeals Court of the due process clause of the United States Constitution to cover individuals personally based on their corporate activities. The Supreme Court has held that under the due process clause, "[s]ufficient contacts exist when an individual's connection with the forum state does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and the defendant purposely avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." In states where the long-arm statutes cover the full extent of the due process clause, the Dakota case will have particular significance, because no specific contacts are required. However, states whose long-arm statutes require specific contacts with the forum are not likely to be affected by this decision.