Originally Posted by
Fabo.sk
Many complications aside, shouldn't your suit be thrown out on the basis that "(jurisdiction can be asserted where a corporation's in-state activities are not only "continuous and systematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on")" etc. as per Goodyear, Daimler and more...
While I admit that a lawsuit brought might very well end up in AF finding it cheaper to settle than to defend, I would find it hard to believe that courts would agree that you can sue an airline for an issue happening entirely outside the US just on the basis that they also sell tickets to the US.
The above seems confusing and confused to me. AF does not only sell tickets in the US-- though I might mention, most if not all US states have long-arm statutes which
generally attempt to extend jurisdiction as much as possible, based on minimal contact with the state-- but AF
has a presence and does business in the US; they have offices, operations etc in the US; they have an agent for the service of process in the US; et cetera.
US Courts thus clearly have personal jurisdiction over both parties to the suit, and thus adjudication may proceed in the US, all else being equal; the recent DB precedent does not apply.
Choice of law is a separate question from jurisdiction, of course.