What does a "no contact" situation imply regarding personal jurisdiction?

A "no contact" situation indicates that the defendant has not established sufficient ties to the forum state, meaning there is a lack of voluntary engagement with that state’s market or residents. In this context, personal jurisdiction cannot be asserted because the defendant’s minimal connection does not meet the constitutional standard of "minimum contacts" required under International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The principle underlying this concept is that for a court to have personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, and this is absent in a no contact scenario.

Each of the other options presents different theories of establishing jurisdiction that do not operate under the "no contact" premise. For instance, personal jurisdiction based on residency requires that the defendant reside within the state where the court is located, which contradicts the idea of no contacts. Similarly, establishing jurisdiction through online presence implies some level of engagement with the forum, which also conflicts with the notion of no contacts. Lastly, jurisdiction being determined by the defendant's choice of location indicates an existing connection or presence, which does not apply when there are no contacts established. Thus, in a "no contact" situation, the correct interpretation is that the court cannot assert personal jurisdiction due to