Nonresident defendant's web site and national advertising were insufficient to support jurisdiction based on a contention that defendant had directed commerce at the state of Illinois. "Plaintiffs ask this court to hold that any defendant who advertises nationally or on the Internet is subject to its jurisdiction. It cannot plausibly be argued that any defendant who advertises nationally could expect to be haled into court in any state, for a cause of action that does not relate to the advertisements. Such general advertising is not the type of 'purposeful activity related to the forum that would make the exercise of jurisdiction fair, just or reasonable.'"
Keywords: Jurisdiction, advertising