Part I discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence and the difficulties that modern varieties of intangible property pose to established analyses. Specifically, while most jurisdictions have acknowledged the difficulties inherent in assigning a "location" to intangible property, few have attempted to update existing precedent to accommodate modern scenarios.
Part II examines the recent Arizona decision in State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc., where the Supreme Court of Arizona confronted the "location" of electronic debts as an issue of first impression.
Part III argues for the Harris fiction's relevance in the modern era. The complexities of modern society demand the resuscitation of the doctrine to adequately cope with an emerging brand of intangible property. This Part posits that Harris applies more than ever, as innovative forms of property are becoming accessible any and everywhere; the holding of Harris is, then, no longer a fiction at all. This section also advances a two-pronged inquiry for assessing a state's legal basis to exercise jurisdiction over such property: (1) whether the property at issue is simultaneously accessible in multiple locations simultaneously; and (2) whether the property exhibits a meaningful connection with the forum state.