Shanghai Tencent v. Olevod — Florida Court Can Hear Claims Against Foreign Streaming Site

Background

Tencent companies that produce and distribute Chinese-language movies and television programs sued the operator of OLEVOD.COM and OLEVOD.TV. Tencent alleges that the sites offer unauthorized streams of its shows, sell ad-free memberships, and display advertising near Tencent content and marks. The complaint asserts federal copyright and trademark claims, along with related state-law claims.

The defendant, identified as Spanish company Jiayi Network Technology SL, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It emphasized that it had no U.S. office or employees, stored the challenged content on European servers, and designed its service for Chinese-language viewers globally rather than for Florida in particular. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, concluding that Tencent had not shown enough Florida-directed activity.

Tencent objected and supplied evidence that the sites were available to Florida users, accepted paid memberships from U.S. customers, sold advertising visible in Florida, and diverted viewers from Tencent’s authorized services. One declaration reported 123,400 visits and 18,800 unique visitors from Florida during June 2026.

The Court’s Holding

Judge David S. Leibowitz rejected the recommendation and denied the motion to dismiss. For Florida’s long-arm statute, the court held that alleged infringement on websites accessible and actually accessed in Florida constitutes a tortious act in the state. The court distinguished that statutory inquiry from the more demanding constitutional due-process analysis.

Due process was also satisfied. Tencent’s claims arose from the defendant’s Florida contacts because the sites allegedly generated revenue there through premium subscriptions and advertisements placed alongside pirated content. Those commercial contacts were not merely the passive worldwide availability of a website. They were tied directly to the conduct Tencent challenged.

The court also found purposeful availment. It compared the case to precedent involving an interactive website used to sell counterfeit goods into Florida. Selling digital access and advertising rather than shipping physical products did not change the analysis. The significant Florida audience, paid subscriptions, and ad business made it foreseeable that the operator could be sued in Florida. Modern communications reduced the burden of litigating there, while Florida and the United States had interests in protecting consumers and enforcing federal IP law.

Key Takeaways

• A globally available website does not automatically create jurisdiction everywhere, but substantial forum traffic plus subscriptions or advertising can establish purposeful commercial contact.
• Digital delivery is not categorically different from shipping physical infringing goods when the defendant monetizes users in the forum.
• At the motion-to-dismiss stage, specific jurisdictional allegations and supporting evidence receive favorable inferences when the defendant does not squarely rebut them.

Why It Matters

The ruling gives content owners a practical path to pursue foreign streaming operators whose businesses reach U.S. audiences. Server location and the absence of a physical U.S. office are not necessarily decisive when a service sells access, displays ads, and attracts meaningful traffic in the chosen forum.

The opinion is procedural and does not decide whether infringement occurred. But by keeping the case in Florida, it shows how evidence about traffic, payment methods, subscriptions, advertising, and customer diversion can determine whether an overseas online platform must answer U.S. copyright and trademark claims.