This Note argues for the increased exercise of general jurisdiction based on registration statutes. Carefully drafted state statutes, explicitly stating that corporations registering to do business in a state thereby consent to general jurisdiction, not only solve the consequences of Daimler, but also fully comport with traditional values of fairness.
Part I outlines the jurisprudential history related to general jurisdiction. Section A begins with the concept of territoriality introduced in Pennoyer and the minimum contacts analysis in International Shoe, then discusses the modern doctrine in Perkins, Helicopteros, and Goodyear, culminating with Daimler. Section B outlines the jurisprudence of consent-based jurisdiction before Daimler. Next, Part II addresses the consequences of Daimler and how lower courts have interpreted and implemented the decision. Finally, Part III discusses statutory solutions. Section A summarizes legislation pending in New York that would codify consent-based jurisdiction. Section B addresses the criticisms of consent to jurisdiction based on registration statutes. Finally, Section C suggests improvements to legislation to ensure corporate accountability.