State of Texas v. Arity 875, LLC

ACCEPTED
15-25-00082-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/24/2025 3:28 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
October 24, 2025 Clerk

Christopher A. Prine Via File&Serve Texas
Fifteenth Court of Appeals
William P. Clements Building
300 W. 15th Street, Suite 607
Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Notice of Supplemental Authority, State v. Arity 875, LLC, (15-25-00082-
CV)

Dear Mr. Prine,

Appellant, the State of Texas, submits this letter to give notice of new
authority that may benefit the Court: State v. Yelp, Inc., No. 15-24-00040-CV, 2025
WL 2936466 (Tex. App. [15th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2025) (attached as Exhibit 1). Yelp
supports the State’s position that Appellee Arity 875, LLC purposefully availed itself
of Texas’ jurisdiction by offering targeted advertisements to Texas consumers
through its proprietary software installed on Texas devices. See State Br. at 39–41.

In Yelp, this Court reviewed a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction from
Yelp, Inc., a California-based website operator. Yelp lacked a physical presence in
Texas but derived “revenue from the sales of customizable location specific
advertising.” Yelp, 2025 WL 2936466 at *8. The Court found that the State
demonstrated that Yelp did “substantial business” in Texas by alleging, in relevant
part, that Yelp “purposefully direct[ed] tailored advertisements to Texas users” as
well as “deriv[ed] revenue from the sales of customizable location specific
advertising.” Id. As a result, this Court found Texas had specific personal
jurisdiction.

Yelp supports the State’s position that Arity 875, LLC purposefully availed
itself of Texas’ jurisdiction by targeting specific drivers in Texas for tailored
advertisements based on their personal geolocation data, and the insights derived
from such data. See State Br. at 40. Like in Yelp, the State alleges that Arity 875, LLC
P os t Office Bo x 12548, Au stin , Tex as 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.tex as atto r neygene ra l.go v
derives revenue from its purposeful presence in Texas through the sales of
customizable, location-specific advertisements directed to Texas consumers. Id.
Further, this case negates Arity 875, LLC’s position that sales of targeted
advertisement positions to third parties seeking to advertise to Texas consumers do
not constitute purposeful availment. Contra Arity 875 Br. at 33.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard R. McCutcheon

Richard R. McCutcheon
Assistant Attorney General

cc: all counsel of record (via electronic filing)
EXHIBIT 1
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

2025 WL 2936466 BACKGROUND
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Yelp is an internet-based Delaware corporation with its
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Yelp
FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT
essentially operates as an online “yellow pages,” 1 providing
LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS
consumers in search of a service or product with lists of
SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
businesses that match the user's specifications, as well as
Court of Appeals of Texas (15th Dist.). custom location-targeted ads, paid for by businesses. The
consumer is then able to either book a reservation or purchase
The STATE of Texas, Appellant a product in some cases. Consumers can post reviews about
v. their experience with those businesses, subject to moderation
YELP, INC., Appellee by Yelp. Other consumers using Yelp are then able to read the
reviews. If a consumer books an appointment or reservation,
NO. 15-24-00040-CV or purchases a product, Yelp generally derives revenue from
| these services. In 2009, Yelp registered to conduct business
Opinion filed October 16, 2025 in Texas as a foreign, for-profit corporation. Yelp listed its
express purpose for transacting business in Texas as “Internet
On Appeal from the 335th District Court, Bastrop County, Advertising.”
Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2519-335, Honorable Reva
Towslee-Corbett, Judge Following the leak of the United States Supreme

Attorneys and Law Firms Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization, 597 U.S. 215, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d
Catherine Lewis Robb, Laura Lee Prather, Austin, Michael J. 545 (2022), Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman urged business
Lambert, William R. Pillifant, for Appellee. leaders to use their “platform and influence” to help protect
reproductive rights. Three months later, in August 2022, Yelp
Abigail E. Smith, Rob Farquharson, Scott Froman, for
posted a consumer notice on the Yelp business pages of
Appellant.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the nation. The notice stated,
Before Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers
typically provide limited medical services and may not have
licensed medical professionals onsite.”

OPINION
By letter dated February 7, 2023, twenty-four state attorneys
April Farris, Justice general, including Texas Attorney General Paxton, demanded
that Yelp remove the notice and “stop discriminating” against
*1 Yelp, Inc. filed a special appearance in response to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The next day, Yelp responded by
the State's petition seeking civil penalties, damages, and providing sources in support of its notice, but Yelp also
injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Deceptive revised the notice to address the concerns raised in the letter.
Trade Practices Act. The trial court granted Yelp's special The revised notice stated, “This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
appearance and dismissed the State's case. On appeal, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals
State argues that this dismissal was erroneous because the to abortion providers.”
State established both general and specific jurisdiction over
Yelp in Texas. We hold that the State did not plead facts *2 On September 28, 2023, the State sued Yelp in Bastrop
establishing general jurisdiction over Yelp, but the State has County, asserting that Yelp violated the Deceptive Trade
established specific jurisdiction. Consequently, we reverse Practices Act by misleading Texas consumers about the
the trial court's order of dismissal and remand the case for availability of medical services at Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
adjudication on the merits. In response, Yelp filed a special appearance, arguing that the
trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because (1) Yelp, as a

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

nonresident, lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to
and specific jurisdiction. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575.
demonstrate purposeful availment of the Texas forum; (2) the
General jurisdiction arises when a defendant's contacts with
State's Deceptive Trade Practices claim does not arise from
the forum state are so “continuous and systematic” that the
Yelp's contacts with Texas; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction
over Yelp would offend traditional notions of fair play and defendant is “essentially at home.” State v. Volkswagen
substantial justice. Aktiengesellschaft, 669 S.W.3d 399, 412 (Tex. 2023) (quoting
Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1,
The State filed a response to the special appearance asserting 8 (Tex. 2021)). General jurisdiction permits courts to “render
that Yelp had extensive contacts with Texas, which gave a binding judgment against a defendant even if the plaintiff's
rise to both general and specific jurisdiction. The State claims neither arise from activities conducted in the forum
also asserted that Yelp had consented to general jurisdiction state nor ‘relate to the forum [s]tate or the defendant's activity
by registering to do business in Texas. The trial court
granted Yelp's special appearance and dismissed the case with there.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Ford Motor
prejudice. This appeal followed. Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358, 141
S.Ct. 1017, 209 L.Ed.2d 225 (2021)). If general jurisdiction
is established, the cause of action “may concern events and
conduct anywhere in the world,” subject to certain limits.
ANALYSIS
Id.
In two issues, the State contends that the trial court erred
in granting Yelp's special appearance because (1) Yelp Courts can exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident
consented to general jurisdiction in Texas as a condition of defendant, when (1) the defendant engages in some act
registering to do business in the state; and (2) Yelp is subject to by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
specific jurisdiction in Texas because it purposefully availed conducting activities within the state and (2) the plaintiff's
itself of the Texas forum, and the State's claims are related to claims arise out of or relate to those forum contacts. LG
those purposeful contacts with Texas. Chem Am., 670 S.W.3d at 347. Purposeful availment and
relatedness are “two co-equal components.” Id. (quoting
I. Standard of Review
Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579). There must be an
A nonresident defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction
appropriate “nexus between the nonresident defendant, the
of Texas courts if (1) the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the
court to exercise jurisdiction, and (2) exercising jurisdiction litigation, and the forum.” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 579.
does not violate state and federal constitutional due process The plaintiff “must demonstrate a ‘substantial connection’
between the defendant's contacts and the operative facts of
guarantees. LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d
341, 346 (Tex. 2023) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code the litigation.” LG Chem Am., 670 S.W.3d at 347 (quoting

§§ 17.041–.045); Kelly v. Gen. Interior Const., Inc., 301 Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 585).
S.W.3d 653, 657 (Tex. 2010). The requirements of the long-
arm statute “are satisfied if an assertion of jurisdiction accords *3 Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a party is

with federal due-process limitations.” Moki Mac River a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 346. When
Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 575 (Tex. 2007). the trial court does not issue findings of fact and conclusions
Personal jurisdiction “is consistent with due process ‘when of law, as is the case here, “we presume all factual disputes
the nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts were resolved in favor of the trial court's decision unless
with the forum state, and the exercise of jurisdiction comports they are challenged on appeal.” Mehta v. State ex rel. Ahmed,
with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ 716 S.W.3d 186, 191 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. 2025, no pet.)

” Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 657 (quoting Moki Mac, 221 (quoting Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 8).
S.W.3d at 575).

II. The State Did Not Plead Allegations Sufficient to
The nonresident defendant's forum-state contacts can give
Establish General Jurisdiction.
rise to two types of personal jurisdiction—general jurisdiction

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

In the State's first issue, the State asserts that Yelp consented to general jurisdiction in Texas by registering to do business
to general jurisdiction in Texas as a condition of registering in Texas. On appeal, Yelp argues that although a response
to a special appearance may contain evidence supporting the
to do business in the state, citing Mallory v. Norfolk S.
petition's allegations, the allegations on which the plaintiff
Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122, 143 S.Ct. 2028, 216 L.Ed.2d 815
bases the exercise of jurisdiction must be in the petition. The
(2023) and Section 9.203 of the Texas Business Organizations
State argues that it was sufficient to raise these sources of
Code. In Mallory, the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction in its response to Yelp's plea to the jurisdiction,
addressed a Pennsylvania statute requiring all corporations
and that the State need not have pleaded either Mallory or
that registered to do business in Pennsylvania to consent to
Texas Business Organizations Code Section 9.203 as the basis
personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania in exchange for status
for an exercise of general jurisdiction.
as a foreign corporation. Mallory, 600 U.S. at 126–27,
143 S.Ct. 2028. The Supreme Court determined that this We agree with Yelp. The Rules of Civil Procedure require
statute—which conferred general personal jurisdiction on courts to determine a special appearance on the “basis of
Pennsylvania courts over registered foreign corporations— the pleadings, any stipulations made by and between the
did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause. parties, such affidavits and attachments as may be filed by
Id. at 146, 143 S.Ct. 2028. the parties, the results of discovery processes, and any oral
testimony.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a(3) (emphasis added). The
The State argues that Section 9.203 of the Texas Business Texas Supreme Court has “consistently held that the plaintiff
Organizations Code functions just like the Pennsylvania bears the initial burden to plead sufficient allegations to bring
the nonresident defendant within the reach of Texas's long-
statute in Mallory, making every foreign corporation
consent to personal jurisdiction in Texas as a condition of arm statute.” Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658; LG Chem Am.,
registering as a foreign corporation. That provision states, in 670 S.W.3d at 346 (noting that for a special appearance, “[t]he
relevant part: plaintiff bears the initial burden to plead sufficient allegations
to bring the nonresident defendant within the reach of the
long-arm statute.”). “The nonresident ‘defendant then bears
the burden to negate all bases of personal jurisdiction alleged
in any matter that affects the
by the plaintiff,’ ” an exercise that typically requires evidence.
transaction of intrastate business in
this state, a foreign entity and each Mehta, 716 S.W.3d at 191 (quoting LG Chem Am., 670
member, owner, or managerial official S.W.3d at 346). But when the Plaintiff's pleadings fail to
of the entity is subject to the same contain facts bringing the defendant within the reach of the
duties, restrictions, penalties, and long-arm statute, then the “defendant need only prove that it
liabilities imposed on a domestic entity
does not live in Texas to negate jurisdiction.” Kelly, 301
to which it most closely corresponds
S.W.3d at 659.
or on a member, owner, or managerial
official of that domestic entity.
*4 Under this burden shifting framework, the plaintiff's
pleadings set the boundaries for what types of evidence and
arguments may be offered either for or against jurisdiction.
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 9.203. Although the pleadings themselves may not be dispositive
of jurisdiction when the defendant contests those pleadings
Yelp disputes that the Texas Business Organizations Code with evidence, the “additional evidence merely supports or
vests Texas courts with general jurisdiction over all foreign
corporations registered in Texas. Regardless, Yelp argues that undermines the allegations in the pleadings.” Id. at 658
we cannot consider this statute as a basis for conferring n.4. In other words, “[b]ecause the plaintiff defines the scope
general jurisdiction because the State did not mention either and nature of the lawsuit, the defendant's corresponding
burden to negate jurisdiction is tied to the allegations in the
Section 9.203 or Mallory in its live pleadings. Rather,
the State waited until its response to Yelp's plea to the plaintiff's pleading.” Id. at 658. If the plaintiff's evidence
jurisdiction to assert, for the first time, that Yelp consented is not within the scope of the pleadings’ factual allegations,

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

then “the plaintiff should amend the pleading to include the negate only those factual bases for personal jurisdiction that
are stated in the plaintiff's pleadings—not those asserted
necessary factual allegations.” Id. at 659.
elsewhere, such as in a response to a plea to the jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Texas Bank & Tr. v. California Coast Credit Union,
We hold that Kelly controls here and compels the No. 12-24-00149-CV, 2025 WL 657280, at *10 (Tex. App.
conclusion that the State must meet its initial burden on —Tyler Feb. 28, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (refusing to
a special appearance by pleading in its petition sufficient credit an indemnification agreement as a basis for personal
allegations to invoke jurisdiction. See id. at 658 (requiring jurisdiction where the plaintiff never amended its pleadings to
the factual bases supporting the exercise of jurisdiction to invoke that agreement as a basis for jurisdiction); Witty Yeti,
be in the petition). We are aware of contrary authority in LLC v. Plummer, No. 04-22-00075-CV, 2022 WL 3046942,
which other courts of appeals have concluded that Rule 120a at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 3, 2022, no pet.)
contemplates considering jurisdictional allegations made in (mem. op.) (“If the plaintiff fails to plead facts to bring the
the plaintiff's response, but these decisions are not consistent defendant within the reach of the court's jurisdiction, the
defendant need only prove that it does not live in Texas
with Kelly's reasoning. 2 to negate personal jurisdiction. Once the plaintiff has met
its burden to plead sufficient jurisdictional allegations, the
We are not alone in interpreting Kelly to require the burden shifts to the defendant to negate all potential bases for
allegations supporting jurisdiction to be included in the personal jurisdiction that exist in the plaintiff's pleadings.”)
petition. The en banc Fifth Court of Appeals has reached the (citing Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658–59). The Texas Business
same conclusion, holding that “[t]he plaintiff's response to
the special appearance may contain evidence supporting the Court, too, has followed Kelly on this point. Riverside
petition's jurisdictional allegations, but that evidence must be Strategic Cap. Fund I, L.P. v. CLG Investments, LLC,
No. 25-BC01B-0006, 2025 WL 2419620, at *7 ¶ 45
consistent with the allegations in the petition.” Steward (Tex. Bus. Ct. Aug. 19, 2025) (“Riverside's arguments and
Health Care System LLC v. Saidara, 633 S.W.3d 120, 129 evidence opposing the special appearance do not save it. The
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.) (en banc). Interpreting court considers only allegations in plaintiffs’ petition—not
Kelly, the Steward court held that “the allegations on allegations made in its response—and considers additional
which the plaintiff bases the exercise of jurisdiction must be evidence only to the extent it supports or undermines those
in the petition,” as “nothing in the supreme court's precedent allegations.”) (citing Kelly, 301 S.W3d at 658–59, and
suggests the defendant must negate jurisdictional allegations
appearing only in the response to the special appearance.” Steward, 633 S.W.3d at 129). We join these courts in
refusing to consider factual grounds for jurisdiction that are
Id. The Court resolved that “[t]o be consistent with not asserted in the plaintiff's pleadings.
Kelly, we conclude that the plaintiff must meet its burden
on a special appearance by pleading, in its petition, sufficient In this case, the State did not raise its argument that the
allegations to invoke jurisdiction under the Texas long-arm Texas Business Organizations Code created jurisdiction by
consent until the State filed its response to Yelp's plea to the
statute.” Id. (overruling the court's prior opinions to the
jurisdiction. This ground for jurisdiction does not appear in
extent that they conflicted with this conclusion). Because
the jurisdiction-conferring allegations appeared only in the the pleadings, so we do not consider it. 3
plaintiffs’ response to the plea to the jurisdiction and not their
We instead review the factual assertions in the pleadings
live pleadings, the Steward Court held that the plaintiffs to determine whether the State met its burden of pleading
had not pleaded sufficient allegations to bring the defendant sufficient allegations to establish that Yelp's continuous and
within the provisions of the Texas long-arm statute. Id. at systematic contacts render it essentially “at home” in Texas.
131. See Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 412. The State's original
petition alleged that Yelp is a Delaware corporation with
*5 Since Steward issued, many of our sister intermediate its principal place of business in California. The State
provided that Yelp could be served with process by serving
courts have followed Kelly in requiring defendants to
its registered agent located in Dallas, Texas. The State did

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

not plead that Yelp consented to general jurisdiction by
is consistent with federal due-process limitations. Moki
registering to do business in Texas. Nor did the State plead
Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575.
anything about Mallory or Texas Business Organizations
Code Section 9.203. The State relied on the affidavits, Federal due-process requirements are satisfied when the
discovery materials, and other evidence attached to its nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts
response. Attached to the State's response was a copy of with the forum state and the exercise of jurisdiction comports
Yelp's application to register as a foreign non-profit in Texas. with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
This evidence, however, was not in support of any pleading
See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66
that Yelp had consented to general jurisdiction. See Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co., S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at
Inc., 712 S.W.3d 909, 919 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 412. Minimum contacts exist when the nonresident defendant
2025, no pet.) (“These allegations appear to address service purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting
of process, not consent to personal jurisdiction.”). activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits
and protections of its laws. Michiana Easy Livin’ Country,
*6 Because the State did not plead sufficient allegations to Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex. 2005).
support its theory of Yelp's consent to general jurisdiction, we
conclude the State failed to establish general jurisdiction. 4 There are three components to the “purposeful availment”
We overrule the State's first issue.
inquiry. Searcy v. Parex Res., Inc., 496 S.W.3d 58, 67
(Tex. 2016). First, only the defendant's contacts with the
III. The State Met Its Burden to Plead and Establish forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another
Specific Jurisdiction. party or a third person. Id. Second, the contacts relied
In its second issue, the State contends the trial court erred upon must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous,
in granting Yelp's special appearance because the State has
isolated, or attenuated. Id. Third, the defendant must seek
pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate specific personal
some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the
jurisdiction over Yelp in Texas. According to the State, Yelp
purposefully availed itself of the Texas forum and the State's jurisdiction. Id. Specific jurisdiction is established if the
claims are related to those purposeful contacts. claims in question arise from or relate to the defendant's
purposeful contacts with Texas. See Volkswagen, 669
Specific jurisdiction, as opposed to general jurisdiction,
S.W.3d at 412–13.
covers defendants who are less intimately connected with
the forum state, but with respect to limited kinds of claims.
*7 In conducting a specific-jurisdiction analysis, we focus
Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 412. Texas courts may exercise on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if the Texas long-
litigation. Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 658. For a nonresident
arm statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction and
defendant's contacts with Texas to support an exercise of
the exercise is consistent with federal and state constitutional
specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection
due-process guarantees. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 574; between the defendant's contacts with the forum state and the
see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042 (Texas long-
operative facts of the litigation. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d
arm statute). The Texas Supreme Court has consolidated
at 585. The operative facts are those facts that would be the
these inquiries, holding that the Texas long-arm statute's
focus of a trial on the merits. Law Firm of Donald Wochna,
broad language allows Texas courts to exercise personal
LLC v. Am. Frontier Mgmt., No. 03-17-00489-CV, 2018 WL
jurisdiction as far as the Due Process Clause of the Federal
1614782, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin April 4, 2018, pet. ref'd)
Constitution permits. Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 412; (mem. op.).
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789,
795 (Tex. 2002). The requirements of the Texas long-arm A. The State Met its Burden to Sufficiently Plead
statute thus are fulfilled if an assertion of personal jurisdiction Specific Jurisdiction.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

The Texas long-arm statute broadly permits a court to exercise users across the country to share information about their
jurisdiction over a foreign corporation who does “business communities” and maintained no technology infrastructure
in this state.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042. The in Texas. Yelp further asserted all decisions concerning
State's original petition alleged that Yelp is “a company” the disclaimer for Crisis Pregnancy Centers were made in
that maintains a “platform in which users can connect California.
with businesses by publishing online public reviews.” Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, which “are located throughout the State *8 The State responded with evidence including (1)
of Texas, including Bastrop County,” are one such business. images of Yelp's webpages; (2) copies of news articles
The State alleged that Yelp “violated Texas law” by posting regarding Yelp; (3) Yelp's Texas Secretary of State filings; (4)
a false, misleading, and disparaging disclaimer on the Yelp publications of Yelp's terms of service, social media posts,
business pages of every pregnancy center across the nation. letter to shareholders, and investor presentations; and (5)
This allegation included Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Texas Yelp's discovery responses.
because the State alleged that (1) the “transactions forming
the basis of this suit occurred in Bastrop County, Texas” and Due to its internet-based business model, Yelp has no need
(2) Yelp “has done business in Bastrop County, Texas.” for a physical presence in Texas—or in most other states for
that matter. However, it hires and retains remote employees
These doing-business pleadings were sufficient to allege that in Texas. Nevertheless, the record reflects that Yelp derives
Yelp is subject to specific jurisdiction under Texas's long- benefits in the form of revenue from the sales of customizable
location specific advertising, and from any reservations or
arm statute. See Steward, 633 S.W.3d at 126 (plaintiff's
other purchases made through Yelp. The State established
pleading requirement is satisfied by an allegation that the
through evidence in support of its response that Yelp does
nonresident defendant is doing business in Texas).
substantial business in Texas, accesses and generates profits
from Texans who book reservations or purchase items through
B. The Asserted Contacts are Sufficient to Show Yelp pages, and purposefully directs tailored advertisements
that Yelp Purposely Availed Itself of the Privilege of to Texas users. The State asserted that when a consumer
Conducting Activities in Texas. searches Yelp's website Yelp uses the consumer's location
Once the State satisfied its initial burden to plead allegations to show business pages for local Texas providers within
sufficient to bring Yelp within the reach of Texas's long- the consumer's geographic area. Yelp also tracks consumers’
arm statute, the burden flipped to Yelp to negate all bases keyword searches and uses that information to facilitate paid
advertisements.
of personal jurisdiction in the State's pleading. Kelly, 301
S.W.3d at 658. Here, the State pleaded that Yelp is an internet-
based company that “features a platform in which users can The State cites Siskind v. Villa Found. for Educ., Inc.,
connect with businesses by publishing online public reviews 642 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1982) in support of its argument that
of those businesses on a publicly accessible page that Yelp Yelp purposely availed itself of jurisdiction in Texas. In
maintains.” According to Yelp, its platform contains “trusted Siskind, the Texas Supreme Court held that exercise of
local business information, photos and review content.” Yelp personal jurisdiction was proper over Villa—a school for
placed a disclaimer on its platform on the pages of Crisis troubled children located in Arizona that solicited business in
Pregnancy Centers across the nation, including in Bastrop
County. Texas. Id. at 435, 437. Siskind, a Texas resident, sued Villa
on the theory that he had paid tuition for his son to attend Villa
In Yelp's special appearance, Yelp argued that there was no with the understanding from the modified enrollment contract
basis for exercising personal jurisdiction because Yelp is a that Siskind would be reimbursed if his son left during the
California-based website operator with no offices in Texas. school year. Id. at 435–36. Villa expelled Siskind's son and
Yelp argued the State failed to establish general or specific
refused to refund the tuition. Id. at 435. Siskind sued the
jurisdiction because the State failed to allege the disclaimer
school in Texas for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and
was purposely directed at Texas, only that Yelp targeted Crisis
Pregnancy Centers nationwide. Yelp asserted it “owns and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Id. at 435–
operates a local search website (available at Yelp.com), a 36.
mobile website, and related mobile applications that allow

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

In holding that Villa had personally availed itself of the S.W.3d at 792. The Texas Supreme Court rejected the
argument, holding that a forum-selection clause does not
Texas forum, the Siskind Court noted that a significant
foreclose the possibility that the defendant had minimum
number of Villa's students were Texas residents, and that
the school advertised in the El Paso, Houston, and Lubbock contacts elsewhere. Id. As the Supreme Court explained,
telephone directories as well as solicited business in a number the clause generally “operates as consent to jurisdiction in one
forum, not proof that the Constitution would allow no other.”
of national publications that were circulated in Texas. Id.
at 435. The Supreme Court held that Villa's advertisements, Id. Regardless of the clause's enforceability in this case
“in conjunction with its practice of mailing informational (an issue not before us), it does not prevent the exercise of
packets, applications for admission, invitations to re-enroll, personal jurisdiction in Texas.
and enrollment contracts to Texas residents,” indicated that
Second, Yelp argues that it has not purposefully availed
the school had affirmatively sought business in Texas. Id.
itself of the forum because it did not make any money from
at 436.
the representations contained in its Consumer Notice. It is
undisputed that Yelp does not allow any business categorized
Here, Yelp does not need to send brochures through the
as a Crisis Pregnancy Center to purchase any services offered
mail or advertise in conventional telephone directories, but
by Yelp, whether the business is located in Texas or elsewhere
seeks consumers by sending targeted advertising based on
in the United States. Further, Yelp does not conduct any trade
where those consumers live. Yelp also engaged in additional
or commerce with any business that is categorized as a Crisis
conduct, such as creating independent pages for different
Pregnancy Center, whether in Texas or anywhere else in the
cities in Texas. The State introduced evidence of Yelp pages
United States, and makes no money off Crisis Pregnancy
advertising medical practices in Austin in addition to images
Centers, directly or indirectly. Yelp argues that rather than
of Yelp pages targeted to Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San
seek any advantages from Texas, Yelp posted the Consumer
Antonio. While the method of delivery is not the same as
Notice to better inform consumers across the country about
in Siskind, like the defendant in Siskind, Yelp actively businesses that they may choose to visit.
solicited business in Texas.
The fact that Yelp did not profit from the Consumer Notice
*9 Yelp makes two other arguments for why it did not itself does not preclude a finding of personal jurisdiction
purposefully avail itself of the privilege of doing business based on Yelp's availment of the Texas forum. Neither
in Texas. First, Yelp argues that it purposefully avoided the the Texas Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has
privilege by including a forum selection clause and choice- conditioned a personal availment finding on whether the
of-law provision in its online user agreement. A defendant defendant profited from the communication directed toward
may “purposefully avoid a particular forum by structuring its the forum. The State is suing Yelp on a Deceptive Trade
transactions in such a way as to neither profit from the forum's Practices claim, a claim for which no financial loss need be
laws” nor subject itself to the forum's jurisdiction. Moki shown in order to recover. Mother & Unborn Baby Care
of N. Tex., Inc. v. State, 749 S.W.2d 533, 538 (Tex. App.
Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (citing Burger King Corp. v. —Fort Worth 1988, writ denied) (“It is immaterial whether
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d appellants provided a service in exchange for money; the
528 (1985)). In support of this argument, Yelp attached to statute as a whole supports the conclusion that transfer of
its special appearance a fifteen-page user agreement that valuable consideration is not necessary.”). Moreover, the
required any claim, cause of action, request for relief, or State has raised a fact issue on whether Yelp might make
dispute that might arise between the consumer and Yelp to money from data harvesting on user searches for Crisis
be resolved by arbitration. Any claims that could not be Pregnancy Centers.
arbitrated were required to be brought in courts located in San
Francisco County, and California law would govern the terms We conclude the State's allegations coupled with the evidence
of the agreement. attached to its response are sufficient to establish that Yelp
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
In Michiana, the defendant cited a similar forum-selection business in Texas, and that Yelp did not negate the State's
allegations. Yelp's business contacts with Texas are thus
clause as a basis for granting its special appearance. 168

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

not the kinds of “random, isolated, or fortuitous” ones that That inquiry is satisfied here. Here, the State alleged that Yelp,
will save a company from personal jurisdiction in a State using location data, appended a misleading disclaimer to the
business pages of over 200 Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Texas
notwithstanding its contacts with it. Ford Motor Co., 592
and “divert[ed] consumers from seeking [Crisis Pregnancy
U.S. at 359, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Centers’] services in favor of other facilities that lacked the
Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 misleading disclosure.” Accordingly, the State's claim “arises
L.Ed.2d 790 (1984)). Rather, Yelp “deliberately ‘reached from an injury which occurred in the forum state”—which
out beyond’ its home” by appending the Consumer Notice is a “relevant part of the relatedness prong of the analysis.”
to Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Texas. We therefore turn to
Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 17. 5
the question of whether the State established a substantial
connection between Yelp's contacts and the operative facts of
Yelp makes two responses for why the relatedness prong
the litigation.
nevertheless is unsatisfied here. First, Yelp responds that
the required relatedness nexus is not satisfied because the
C. Yelp's Contacts with Texas are Related to the disclaimer at the heart of the State's claim was published
Operative Facts of the Litigation. nationwide and not sent specifically to any Texas consumer.
*10 The State's Deceptive Trade Practices claim is premised According to Yelp, because Yelp targeted Crisis Pregnancy
on allegations that Yelp directly appended misleading Centers everywhere, it cannot be said to have targeted Texas
statements about Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers to the specifically. We disagree. The fact that Yelp targeted Crisis
business pages of over 200 Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Pregnancy Centers outside Texas as well as in Texas does
including in the district where this suit was brought—Bastrop not preclude us from finding the relatedness inquiry to be
County. Yelp responds that the relevant decisions at issue satisfied. The Texas Supreme Court recently rejected an
were made by Yelp employees in California. Those decisions analogous argument, holding that a “defendant need not
included whether to create the Crisis Pregnancy Center single Texas out in some unique way to satisfy constitutional
business category and whether to place disclaimers on Crisis dictates.” Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 420. Rather, the
Pregnancy Centers. The United States Supreme Court has “critical inquiry is whether a nonresident defendant has
recognized that the relatedness inquiry, however, does not established sufficient contacts with Texas—not whether those
require a causal connection. See Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. contacts are materially different from its contacts with other
at 361–62, 366 (holding that car manufacturer was subject states.” Id. at 421. A contrary rule would create perverse
to specific jurisdiction in Montana and Minnesota on claims incentives, encouraging actors to commit harms everywhere
for car-wreck injuries suffered there because manufacturer
had advertised, sold, and serviced the relevant car models “in to avoid being haled into court anywhere. See id. Here,
both States for many years,” even though the manufacturer as in Volkswagen, “there was no happenstance to [Yelp's]
did not sell the specific cars involved in the litigation in those
contacts with Texas.” Id. at 420. Yelp's conduct reflects
states). Instead, the relatedness inquiry requires only that the
intent to avail itself of several markets nationwide, including
suit arise out of or relate to the defendant's contact with the
Texas. Yelp's contacts in Texas are related to the operative
forum. Id. at 362; see Volkswagen, 669 S.W.3d at 431 facts of the litigation; the fact that Yelp did not single out
(determining that “[r]elationships may ‘support jurisdiction
Texas does not defeat specific jurisdiction. Id.
without a causal showing’ even when the litigation merely
relates to the defendant's forum contacts.”) (quoting Ford Second, Yelp argues that the State's primary authorities do not
Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362, 141 S.Ct. 1017); Luciano, 625 involve internet transactions, and that this distinction compels
S.W.3d at 17 (refusing to condition specific jurisdiction on a different result. See Ford, 592 U.S. at 366 n.4, 141
a “strict causal connection,” and instead finding it sufficient S.Ct. 1017 (excluding internet transactions from the product-
that SprayFoam “intended to serve a Texas market for the liability case analysis because internet transaction cases
insulation that the Lucianos allege injured them in this “may raise doctrinal questions of their own.”). According
lawsuit.”). to Yelp, although Ford rejected a “strict causal theory” of
relatedness, “it did not say that ‘anything goes.’ ” Johnson

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314, 324 (5th Cir. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction
2021) (quoting Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362, 141 over HuffPost with respect to Johnson's libel claim. Id.
S.Ct. 1017). Yelp invokes the Fifth Circuit's directive in
at 325. This case is unlike Johnson in all key respects:
Johnson that “a plaintiff must link the defendant's suit- jurisdiction does not turn on mere website accessibility, but
related conduct to the forum. Mere market exploitation will rather “internet activity was intended to target and focus
on the forum.” Wakefield, 449 S.W.3d at 188. Here, Yelp
not suffice.” Id. In Johnson, the Fifth Circuit held that
expressly acknowledges that, while some people come to Yelp
merely making a website “that's visible in Texas, of course,
to find businesses that offer the pregnancy resources that
does not suffice” to confer specific jurisdiction. Id. at 320; Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide, there are others who turn
see Admar Int'l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783, 785 to Yelp to find reliable information about abortion providers,
(5th Cir. 2021) (“Merely running a website that is accessible and that Yelp issued the Consumer Notice to help consumers
in all 50 states, but that does not specifically target the make informed decisions. Here, the Consumer Notice was
forum state, is not enough to create the ‘minimum contacts’ appended to Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers, the customers
necessary.”); Wakefield v. British Med. Journal Publ'g Group, of which are likely to be Texans. This is enough to establish
Ltd., 449 S.W.3d 172, 188 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no the relatedness prong. 6
pet.) (“[T]he plaintiff must establish that the nonresident
defendant's internet activity was intended to target and focus
on the forum.”). D. Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Yelp
Comports with Traditional Notions of Fair Play and
*11 We agree with Yelp that “not anything goes” with Substantial Justice.
respect to establishing specific jurisdiction over a company Once minimum contacts have been established, we must
for its internet activities. But nor is the internet an invisibility consider whether, for other reasons, exercising jurisdiction
cloak that prevents an actor from being haled into court over the nonresident defendant would offend “traditional
in a given state simply because the actor used the internet notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe,
in the course of targeting its activity at Texas. Here, Yelp 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. Rarely will properly exercised
took specific actions to target its communication at persons jurisdiction be found to impair fair play and substantial
who were seeking help from Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
justice. Luciano, 625 S.W.3d at 18. We consider Yelp's
Yelp appended the Consumer Notice—which contains the
contacts with Texas in light of (1) the burden on the defendant;
statements that the State contends are misleading—about
(2) the interests of the forum in adjudicating the dispute; (3)
Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers to the business pages of over
the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective
200 Texas Crisis Pregnancy Centers, including in the district
relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining
where this suit was brought—Bastrop County. It is undisputed
the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the
that the Consumer Notice at issue here was viewable only on
shared interest of several states in furthering fundamental
“relevant Yelp pages”—in other words, the business listings
for Crisis Pregnancy Centers, including the Texas locations. substantive social policies. Id. at 18–19.

*12 There is no undue burden placed upon Yelp by
These facts distinguish this case from Johnson. In
exercising jurisdiction. Yelp enjoys benefits and privileges
Johnson, the plaintiff sued about a story that was posted on when conducting business in Texas, which are accompanied
HuffPost's general news website. The site was “interactive,” by the corresponding obligation to answer suits that may
but its story about Johnson had “no ties to Texas”; did “not
arise from that business. Id. at 19 (“[T]o the extent that
mention Texas”; recounted “a meeting that took place outside
a corporation exercises the privilege of conducting activities
Texas,” and “it used no Texan sources.” Johnson, 21 F.4th within a state, it enjoys the benefits and protection of the laws
at 319. The Court further recognized that the mere fact that the
of that state.”) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct.
website was accessible in Texas was the only possible basis
154).
for haling HuffPost into Texas courts, as HuffPost had not
otherwise purposefully availed itself of Texas. Id. at 320.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

the letter sent to Yelp, several states share Texas's interest in
Yelp asserts that it will be burdensome for it to litigate this
ensuring that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are not the targets of
case in Texas because all of its witnesses and documents
are located in California. The burden to litigate in Texas, actionable misleading statements, assuming arguendo that the
however, is lessened by modern travel and technology. State's allegations are meritorious. We conclude exercising
jurisdiction over Yelp does not offend notions of fair play and
See id.; Moncrief Oil Intern. Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, substantial justice. We sustain the State's second issue.
414 S.W.3d 142, 155 (Tex. 2013) (“Distance alone cannot
ordinarily defeat jurisdiction.”). Yelp also contends that the
State's interest in the litigation is lessened because it has not
named a specific consumer who has been harmed by Yelp's CONCLUSION
actions. The State, however has a strong interest in exercising
Having determined that Yelp is subject to specific jurisdiction
jurisdiction to protect its citizens from activities that may
in Texas, we reverse the trial court's order granting Yelp's
violate the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Luciano, special appearance and remand this case to the trial court.
625 S.W.3d at 19 (“[B]y virtue of the Legislature's
enactment of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, ... Texas
has demonstrated a special interest in protecting its citizens All Citations
from the sort of activity alleged here.”). Furthermore, as
--- S.W.3d ----, 2025 WL 2936466
evidenced by the number of attorneys general who signed

Footnotes

1 Back when phones were still tethered to walls and not yet unleashed to dominate society, Americans typically
owned hard-copy “telephone books.” In those telephone books, the “yellow pages” were the section—
readily identifiable by the yellow hue of the paper—listing “business and professional firms alphabetically
by category and that include[ed] classified advertising.” Yellow Pages, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, https://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yellow% 20pages (last visited 4 Oct. 2025).

2
See e.g., Patel v. Pate, No. 02-16-00313-CV, 2017 WL 2871684, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 6,
2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Sembcorp Marine Ltd. v. Carnes, Nos. 09-15-00430-CV, 09-15-00484-CV, 2016
WL 3019552, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); Mi Gwang Contact Lens Co.
v. Chapa, No. 13-13-00306-CV, 2015 WL 3637846, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 11,
2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); Accelerated Wealth, LLC v. Lead Generation & Mktg., LLC, No. 04-12-00647-
CV, 2013 WL 1148923, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 20, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hale v. Richey,
No. 10-11-00187-CV, 2012 WL 89920, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 11, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Max
Protetch, Inc. v. Herrin, 340 S.W.3d 878, 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Touradji
v. Beach Cap. P'ship, L.P., 316 S.W.3d 15, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Ennis v.
Loiseau, 164 S.W.3d 698, 705 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, no pet.).

3 Following submission of this appeal, Yelp filed several notices of supplemental authority citing other courts
that have held that nonresident defendants do not impliedly consent to general jurisdiction in Texas by
registering to do business in Texas. See Morris v. Kan. City Ry., No. 2:24-CV-00018-JRG, 2024 WL 3347379,
at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2024) (“ Mallory's conclusion of implied consent to jurisdiction does not extend
to the Texas long-arm statute.”); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co., Inc.,

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10
State v. Yelp, Inc., --- S.W.3d ---- (2025)
2025 WL 2936466

712 S.W.3d 909, 924 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025, no pet.) (concluding that by registering to do
business in Texas a nonresident company does not impliedly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over them by Texas courts); Repairify, Inc. v. Opus IVS, Inc., No. 05-23-00921-CV, 2024 WL 2205663, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 16, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[U]nlike Pennsylvania law in Mallory, none of
Texas's business registration statutes—and nothing in Texas's long-arm scheme—includes any language
specifically directing that complying with them would subject a business to personal jurisdiction in Texas.”).
Because this ground for jurisdiction does not appear in the State's pleadings, we need not address Yelp's
supplemental authority addressing the State's arguments that by registering to do business in Texas Yelp
consented to general jurisdiction.

4 We note that the Texas Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff fails to establish jurisdiction through its
pleadings, the plaintiff “should amend the pleading to include the necessary factual allegations, see Tex.
R. Civ. P. 63, thereby allowing jurisdiction to be decided based on evidence rather than allegations, as it
should be.” Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 659. Although the State could amend its pleadings to assert the facts
underlying its general jurisdiction theory, the State need not do so because the State has alleged sufficient
facts to demonstrate specific personal jurisdiction over Yelp on the claims at issue.

5 In another post-submission supplemental brief, Yelp cited a Thirteenth Court of Appeals case in which our
sister intermediate court held that Google was not subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas because the State
did not specifically plead that the operative facts of its Deceptive Trade Practices claim arose out of or were
related to Google's contacts with Texas. Google LLC v. State, No. 13-23-00114-CV, 2025 WL 52611,
at *7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 9, 2025, pet. abated) (mem. op.). This case is factually
distinguishable in that, here, the State specifically pleaded that the operative facts arose out of or were related
to Yelp's contacts with Texas.

6 In addition to its supplemental briefing on general jurisdiction, Yelp filed an additional supplemental brief
citing two Texas Supreme Court cases in which the Court adhered to its long-established precedent that,
in product-liability cases, Texas follows the “stream-of-commerce-plus” doctrine of personal jurisdiction and
that “[t]argeting Texas remains the touchstone” when determining whether a nonresident defendant may be
subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. See BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik, 716 S.W.3d 98, 108
(Tex. 2025); Hyundam Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Swacina, 716 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex. 2025). This is not a product
liability case, but our determination that Yelp targeted Texas in appending the Consumer Notice to Texas
Crisis Pregnancy Center business pages is consistent with the Texas Supreme Court's analysis in Shaik
and Swacina.

End of Document © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Zoann Willis on behalf of Richard Berlin
Bar No. 24055161
zoann.willis@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 107275058
Filing Code Description: Letter
Filing Description: 20251024 Letter of Supplemental Authority wExh 1
Status as of 10/24/2025 3:36 PM CST

Associated Case Party: State of Texas

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Rick Berlin Rick.Berlin@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Daniel Zwart Daniel.Zwart@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Kaylie Buettner Kaylie.Buettner@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Zoann Willis zoann.willis@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Meredith Spillane Meredith.Spillane@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Zeilic Contreras Zeilic.Contreras@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Carlos Fernandez Carlos.Fernandez@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Madeline Fogel madeline.fogel@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Richard RMcCutcheon richard.mccutcheon@oag.texas.gov 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jonathan Hung johung@winston.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Eric Shinabarger EShinabarger@winston.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

W. Reid Wittliff reid@wittliffcutter.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Jake Sommer jake@zwillgen.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Kelsey Harclerode kelsey@zwillgen.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Sudhir V. Rao sudhir.rao@zwillgen.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Sean Wieber swieber@winston.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT

Kevin Simpson kpsimpson@winston.com 10/24/2025 3:28:42 PM SENT