stream-of-commerce-plus test in Texas

2025Its decision—applying the stream-of-commerce-plus test to a fact pattern similar to the case at hand—reiterated the standard for when a Texas court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign company whose products are sold or delivered to the Texas market: the “test requires a defendant to specifically target Texas; it is not enough that a defendant may foresee some of its products’ eventually arriving here.” Id. at *1; see also Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 9–10.

2025The stream-of-commerce-plus test in product-liability cases In product-liability cases, “[t]he stream-of-commerce doctrine is a useful tool to conceptualize minimum contacts.” Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 9.

2025Under the stream-of-commerce-plus test, “[w]hen a nonresident manufacturer has no knowledge, care, or control over where a product ends up,” Texas courts “require some ‘plus factor’ to establish purposeful availment.” Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 417.

2024Benitez cites to the supreme court’s language in Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, where it explained that “[u]nder a stream-of-commerce-plus framework, ‘“a nonresident who places products into the ‘stream of commerce’ with the expectation that they will be sold in the forum state” may be subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum.’” 669 S.W.3d at 417 (quoting TV Azteca, 490 S.W.3d at 46 ).

2025Additionally, and as relevant here, the stream-of-commerce-plus test finds purposeful availment where the nonresident defendant “creat[es], control[s], or employ[s] the distribution system that brought the product into [Texas].” Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 10 (citing CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595 (Tex. 1996)).

2025Additionally, and as relevant here, conduct,” in other words, must show “targeting” Texas in the stream-of-commerce-plus test finds purposeful availment particular, not merely passive awareness of a likelihood where the nonresident defendant “creat[es], control[s], or —even a substantial likelihood verging on certainty—that employ[s] the distribution system that brought the product products may eventually arrive in our State. into [Texas].” Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 10 (citing CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 595 (Tex. 1996)).

2025But all the while, and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, we have emphasized that the defendant’s “awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into [Texas] does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act 8 purposefully directed toward [Texas].” CSR, 925 S.W.2d at 595 (emphasis added) (quoting Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112 (plurality opinion)).

2025Over the years, we have identified a few examples of such “additional conduct” sufficient to establish that a nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Texas, including “[a]dvertising in telephone directories in Texas cities” and “operating an office for sales information and support.” See, e.g., Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005) (first citing Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. 1982); and then citing Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201

2025Over the years, we have identified a few examples of such “additional conduct” sufficient to establish that a nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Texas, including “[a]dvertising in telephone directories in Texas cities” and “operating an office for sales information and support.” See, e.g., Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005) (first citing Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. 1982); and then citing Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201

2025Tex. June 27, 2005). 13 This Court, on the other hand, has adopted the Asahi plurality’s approach, endorsing the so-called stream-of-commerce-plus test.22 Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 873 (Tex. 2010) (“[O]ur precedent generally follows Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi, which requires some ‘additional conduct’—beyond merely placing the product in the stream of commerce—that indicates ‘an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State.’”); see also In re Christianson Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, 639 S.W.3d 671 , 677 (Tex. 2022).

2025Indeed, the very point of the stream-of-commerce-plus test is that Rotax’s “act of placing a product into the stream of commerce does not establish purposeful availment unless there is ‘additional conduct’ evincing ‘an intent or purpose to serve the market in [Texas].’ ” LG Chem, 670 S.W.3d at 347 (emphasis added) (quoting Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 577 ).

2025Over the years, we have identified a few examples of such “additional conduct” sufficient to establish that a nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in Texas, including “[a]dvertising in telephone directories in Texas cities” and “operating an office for sales information and support.” See, e.g., Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005) (first citing Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc., 642 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. 1982); and then citing Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 201

2025Tex. June 27, 2005). 13 This Court, on the other hand, has adopted the Asahi plurality’s approach, endorsing the so-called stream-of-commerce-plus test.22 Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868, 873 (Tex. 2010) (“[O]ur precedent generally follows Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Asahi, which requires some ‘additional conduct’—beyond merely placing the product in the stream of commerce—that indicates ‘an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State.’”); see also In re Christianson Air Conditioning & Plumbing, LLC, 639 S.W.3d 671 , 677 (Tex. 2022).