Fifteenth Court of Appeals Decision – October 16, 2025
No. 15-24-00040-CV The State of Texas v. Yelp, Inc. (Bastrop County Dist. Court) SearchMedia.aspx
[Farris, Author, with Chief Justice Brister and Justice Field]
Civil case – Jurisdiction. The State brought this action seeking civil penalties, damages, and injunctive relief for Yelp’s alleged violation of the Deceptive Practices Act; Yelp is registered to conduct business in Texas as a foreign, for-profit corporation; it lists its express purpose for transacting business in Texas as “Internet Advertising.” Yelp filed a special appearance, and the district court concluded the State had failed to establish either general or specific jurisdiction over Yelp, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. The State appeals. Held: the State did not plead facts establishing general jurisdiction over Yelp, but it has established specific jurisdiction. Reversed and remanded.
In the underlying complaint, the State asserted Yelp violated the Deceptive Trade Practices by misleading consumers about the availability of medical services at Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
Held: (1) the State did not plead allegations sufficient to establish general jurisdiction as it did not raise its argument that Yelp consented to do business in the state in its complaint; instead it raised the bases for general jurisdiction -Section 9.203 of the Texas Business Organization Code and Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023) – when it filed its response to Yelp’s special appearance; under Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a(3), a special appearance jurisdiction challenge is determined on the basis of the pleadings, and the State must meet its initial burden to invoke jurisdiction through the sufficiency of the allegations its petition; here, the grounds raised in the response do not appear in the pleadings, and would not be considered; the factual allegations in the pleadings are insufficient to establish Yelp’s continuous and systematic contacts render it essentially “at home” in Texas; but
(2) the State met its burden to plead and establish specific jurisdiction as the allegations show Yelp purposefully availed itself of the Texas forum, and the State’s claims are related to those purposeful contacts as: (a) the pleadings alleged Yelp was doing business in Texas, which was sufficient to satisfy Texas’s long-arm statute; (b) Yelp derives benefits in the form of revenue from the sale of customizable location specific ads and from any reservations or other purchases made through its website, which is sufficient to show Yelp purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas; and (c) Yelp’s contacts with Texas, including the online information about over 200 Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers, were related to the operative facts of the litigation, and the alleged misinformation about the Centers which Yelp allegedly ran meant the State’s claim arises from an injury which occurred in Texas; minimum contacts having been established,
(3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Yelp comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; Yelp benefited from conducting business, the burden of interstate litigation is lessened by modern technology, and Texas has a special interest in protecting its citizens from deceptive trade practices.