In J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, what was concluded regarding targeting the U.S. market?

In J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro, the conclusion reached regarding targeting the U.S. market is that targeting a market does not equate to targeting a specific forum state. The case emphasizes the distinction between the general act of marketing to an entire country (like the U.S.) and the specific targeting of a particular state within that country.

The ruling highlights that simply having a product available in a national market does not automatically give rise to personal jurisdiction in every state where that product might be sold or used. For personal jurisdiction to exist, there must be sufficient contacts with the particular forum state, not just a broader intention to engage with the national market. The court established that the actions and connections of the defendant must demonstrate an intentional focus on the specific state where litigation is taking place, rather than a general marketing strategy applicable across the entire country.

This distinction is critical because it helps to define the parameters of where a business can be held liable, reinforcing that specific jurisdiction depends on the nature and quality of the defendant's contacts with the forum state rather than a mere presence in the national marketplace.