Boyden v. Hyundai — California Courts Cannot Hear Publicity Claim Over Korea-Only SUV

Background

Robert Boyden, a skateboarder professionally known as “Casper,” is credited with originating the Casper flip. He sued Hyundai Motor Company and two affiliates in California, alleging that Hyundai used his identity without permission when it named a small sport-utility vehicle the Hyundai Casper. His complaint asserted California statutory and common-law right-of-publicity claims.

The Casper was developed, marketed, and sold in South Korea. Boyden nevertheless argued that California courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Korean manufacturer because Hyundai worked with California-based technology companies, used imagery associated with California and skateboarding, and foreseeably harmed a California resident. The trial court disagreed, quashed service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, and entered judgment for Hyundai. Boyden appealed, also arguing that he should have received more time and discovery before the jurisdictional ruling.

The Court’s Holding

The California Court of Appeal affirmed. Specific jurisdiction requires suit-related conduct by which a defendant deliberately directs activity toward the forum state. It was not enough that Hyundai may have known Boyden lived in California or that any injury would be felt there. The relevant evidence showed that Hyundai’s conduct was aimed at South Korea: the vehicle was sold only there, its online showroom permitted only Korean sales, and Korean teams handled its development, naming, and branding.

The court rejected Boyden’s reliance on a supposed “California ethos” in Hyundai’s advertising. Marketing themes such as palm trees or skateboarding did not amount to intentionally targeting California consumers. Nor did the use of services supplied by California-based technology companies establish purposeful direction toward the state. Some of Boyden’s supporting declarations were also inadmissible because they did not comply with California’s requirements for declarations executed outside the state.

The panel also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s management of jurisdictional discovery. Boyden had approximately eight and a half months for discovery, and Hyundai made a rolling document production. Against a record reflecting overbreadth, delay, and shifting requests, the trial court could reasonably decide the jurisdictional motion without postponing it for additional document searches and depositions.

Key Takeaways

• A plaintiff’s residence and foreseeable in-state injury do not, by themselves, create specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.
• Using vendors or internet platforms based in a state is not the same as deliberately targeting that state’s market.
• Brand imagery associated with a place—here, skateboarding and an asserted “California ethos”—does not establish forum-directed conduct without evidence that the campaign targeted the forum.
• Parties seeking jurisdictional discovery must manage the available schedule carefully and submit properly executed declarations.

Why It Matters

The opinion illustrates an important limit on right-of-publicity litigation involving globally marketed brands. A California personality cannot automatically sue a foreign company in California simply because the challenged name or campaign draws on cultural imagery associated with the state. The jurisdictional inquiry focuses on where the defendant deliberately directed the conduct connected to the claim.

For companies operating digital campaigns, the ruling also distinguishes the geographic location of online service providers from the market a campaign actually targets. For plaintiffs, it underscores the need to develop admissible evidence tying the defendant’s own conduct—not merely third-party platforms or the plaintiff’s injury—to the chosen forum.

Surfaced via Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog.