Which of the following scenarios would most likely trigger specific jurisdiction?

Specific jurisdiction arises when a defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum state, and the case arises out of those contacts. In this scenario, a defendant promoting a product in the state that causes harm demonstrates a clear connection between the defendant's activities and the forum state, fulfilling the requirement for specific jurisdiction.

When a defendant actively promotes a product in a state, they intentionally engage with that state’s market and create a relationship with its residents. If that product subsequently causes harm, any legal action arising from that harm directly relates to the defendant’s conduct within the state, thus allowing the court in that state to assert jurisdiction over the defendant.

Other scenarios presented do not establish the same level of connection. A defendant residing out of state with no business in the forum indicates a lack of contacts necessary for jurisdiction. Similarly, a defendant who has never been to the forum state does not create any ties that would invoke specific jurisdiction. Finally, participating only in online discussions without further engagement in the forum state may not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement needed for the court to claim jurisdiction, particularly if those discussions don’t target residents in the forum state or result in localized harm.