How do courts generally handle attribution of a subsidiary's actions to a parent company for jurisdiction?

Courts typically require proof of control or involvement by the parent company to attribute a subsidiary's actions to it for jurisdictional purposes. This approach is grounded in the principles of personal jurisdiction, which emphasize the necessity for a connection between the defendant and the forum state.

In order for a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a parent company based on the actions of its subsidiary, there must be evidence demonstrating that the parent exercises sufficient control, direction, or involvement in the subsidiary's operations. This might include factors such as shared governance, intermingled finances, or the extent to which the parent company dictates the subsidiary's policies and practices.

It’s important to understand that the mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship is not enough; rather, courts look for indicia of actual control or influence that goes beyond normal parent-subsidiary dynamics. This requirement protects parent companies from being subject to jurisdiction in states where their subsidiaries operate without adequate legal ties.

In contrast, options that suggest automatic attribution of actions without evidence, ignoring the relationship, or considering only revenue do not align with the legal standards for establishing personal jurisdiction. These alternatives fail to acknowledge the necessary legal framework that governs the relationship between parent companies and their subsidiaries in the context of jurisdiction