In a personal jurisdiction suit concerning notices Yelp attached to crisis pregnancy center business pages, the 15th Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a trial court order granting Yelp’s special appearance, finding that while Yelp defeated the State’s general jurisdiction, it remained subject to specific jurisdiction.
The State of Texas v. Yelp, Inc. (No. 15-24-00040-CV; October 16, 2025) arose in August 2022, after Yelp appended consumer notices to its crisis pregnancy center business pages nationwide, indicating the centers’ potentially “limited medical services” and possible lack of “licenced medical professionals onsite.” Despite demands from 24 state attorneys general to remove the supposedly “discriminatory” disclaimers, Yelp instead revised the notice, prompting the State of Texas to sue them in Bastrop County on September 28, 2023. In its suit, the State claimed Yelp violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act by misleading Texas consumers about medical service availability at crisis pregnancy centers. Yelp filed a special appearance, which the trial court granted and dismissed the case. The State appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Farris, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. The State first challenged the trial court’s order on grounds that Yelp had consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in Texas, citing Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023) and § 9.203, BOC. The court disagreed, finding that since these jurisdictional theories were only introduced in the State’s response to Yelp’s pleadings, not in its petition, they were inapplicable (Kelly v. Gen. Interior Const., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. 2010); Steward Health Care System LLC v. Saidara, 633 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.) (en banc)).
Consequently, because the State’s only claim in its pleading was that Yelp, a California-based company, could be served with process via its registered agent in Dallas, Texas, the court concluded that the State failed to establish general jurisdiction. Considering the State’s specific jurisdiction allegations, however, the court agreed with the State and found specific jurisdiction. To establish specific jurisdiction under the Texas long-arm statute, plaintiffs must show “minimum contacts”, which arise when (i) the defendant has “purposefully availed [him]self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State” (LG Chem. Am., Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2023)) and (ii) there exists “a substantial connection between those [forum] contacts and the operative facts of the litigation”. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585. The court concluded that Yelp had “minimum contacts” with Texas, despite its lack of corporate or technological infrastructure in the state. Yelp conducted business in Bastrop County, availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Texas by hiring remote employees, running and profiting from location-specific advertisements directed at Texans, and using Texas location data to identify crisis pregnancy centers.
Yelp argued otherwise, pointing to (1) its inclusion of a forum selection clause and choice-of-law provisions in its online user agreement and (2) the lack of revenue generated from the postings. The court rejected Yelp’s first argument, citing Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005), reasoning that forum-selection clauses do not prevent parties from having minimum contacts elsewhere. Similarly, the court dismissed Yelp’s revenue contention, opining that whether Yelp profited from the consumer notice was irrelevant to a personal availment analysis since the nature of this suit was nonmonetary. The court also found that Yelp had satisfied the second prong of specific jurisdiction because its Texas contacts were tied to its allegedly harmful appending of the consumer notices. While Yelp claimed its decision to append notices to crisis pregnancy centers’ pages was executed nationwide, the court observed that the “critical inquiry is whether a nonresident defendant has established sufficient contacts with Texas—not whether those contacts are materially different from its contacts with other states” (State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 669 S.W.3d at 421 (Tex. 2023)). Moreover, while running a website “that’s visible in Texas […] does not suffice” to confer specific jurisdiction (Johnson v. The Huffington Post.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 320 (5th Cir. 2021) as Yelp argued, the court maintained that posting disclaimers targeted at Texans seeking pregnancy care, does. Thus, the court concluded that Yelp’s internet activity was related to the operative facts of the State’s DTPA claim.
Lastly, the court concluded that exercising personal jurisdiction over Yelp comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice given (1) the absence of any undue burden to Yelp, (2) Texas’s interest in adjudication to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices, and (3) the shared interests of several several states in ensuring crisis pregnancy centers are not the targets of misinformation.
TCJL Intern Shaan Rao Singh researched and prepared this article.
