The Supreme Court limited the geography of filing lawsuits on Internet transactions

Supreme Court Judge Yehiel Kasher issued a ruling limiting the ability of lawsuits over Internet transactions to be filed outside the judicial district in which the plaintiff or defendant is located.

Judge Kasher’s decision is intended to bring order to the rules of civil procedure in relation to claims related to online trading.

In general, the place of filing a claim is the court at the place of residence or business of the defendant, or at the place where the transaction was concluded, if the parties to the contract do not specify a specific court.

In 2018, the Knesset introduced an addition to the rulings on the procedure for legal proceedings specifically for online commerce, adding the possibility of conducting a court at the plaintiff’s place of residence, but the wording of the addition turned out to be too broad and vague.

Judge Kasher’s decision is intended to close this uncertainty and provide a clear mechanism for determining the geography of the trial. It determines that when making a purchase via the Internet, a claim can be filed at the place of residence or business of either party, even if a different city is specified in the transaction agreement.

In this case, only a purchase actually made through the seller’s website or application is considered an online transaction. If the transaction was discussed and finally agreed upon by email, telephone, or any other means without going through the seller’s website, it is no longer “online trading,” even if it is a purchase between an individual and a business. In such a case, the normal rules of jurisdiction apply, including any agreement between the parties on the place of trial.

If a product or service can only be obtained at a specific physical location – for example, a specific store or branch – then it is that location that determines where to litigate, not just the buyer’s place of residence. The very fact that the purchased goods were delivered to the buyer’s home by courier does not create a geographical reference – this does not turn his apartment into the “place” of the transaction for the purposes of jurisdiction.