Personal jurisdiction defense in a Schedule A case: the current state for eBay sellers

A federal court order can freeze an eBay seller's payment account before the seller receives any notice of the case. The listings go dark. The balance is locked. And the seller is listed as one of dozens – sometimes hundreds – of defendants in a single complaint filed in a district where they have never done business. That is the defining feature of the "Schedule A Defendants" scheme as it applies to marketplace sellers, and it is the feature that makes personal jurisdiction one of the most important defenses available.

TL;DRPersonal jurisdiction defense in a Schedule A case challenges whether the court that issued the temporary restraining order (TRO) actually has legal authority over a specific seller. Being named does not mean jurisdiction exists. Courts sitting in one federal district cannot assert jurisdiction over every seller in the country – or the world – simply because the plaintiff chose that venue. A timely, well-supported motion can dissolve or narrow a TRO and, where jurisdiction is genuinely absent, end the case in that forum before it progresses further.

This update covers what personal jurisdiction means in the Schedule A context, how the defense works procedurally, and the decision points that determine whether it is the right move for an eBay seller facing a frozen account.

What does "personal jurisdiction" actually mean for an eBay Schedule A defendant?

Personal jurisdiction is the court's authority to bind a specific defendant to its judgment – and it is separate from whether the plaintiff's underlying claim has any merit. A court sitting in Illinois, for example, does not automatically have jurisdiction over a seller operating from Ohio, India, or the UK simply because the plaintiff filed there. The constitutional standard requires that the defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state: purposefully directing commercial activity there, not merely selling nationally through a marketplace that happens to be accessible everywhere.

In Schedule A litigation, plaintiffs routinely file in a handful of favored districts – notably the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida. They file against large groups of defendants at once, a structure sometimes called the SAD scheme (Schedule A Defendants). The tactic works, at least initially, because courts grant ex parte TROs before defendants appear. The asset freeze follows automatically. By the time a seller discovers the case, the damage to cash flow and inventory access is already real.

The personal jurisdiction argument enters at the motion-to-dismiss or motion-to-dissolve stage. The seller's counsel asserts that the defendant has no meaningful connection to the forum state – no physical presence, no targeted advertising directed at that state's consumers, no contracts negotiated or performed there. Selling through eBay's platform, which is accessible nationwide, does not by itself establish forum-specific contacts in most circuits.

In matters we handle, the jurisdiction argument is rarely a standalone play. It is evaluated alongside joinder and misjoinder – whether grouping dozens of unrelated sellers into one complaint is procedurally proper – and alongside the merits of the underlying trademark or copyright claim. Understanding how these threads interact is part of what we review first. Sellers interested in how the joinder side of that analysis works can find a step-by-step breakdown at our guide on improper joinder of defendants.

Why eBay sellers face particular exposure in Schedule A cases

eBay operates as one of the primary targets in Schedule A litigation alongside Amazon, and the mechanics of enforcement on the platform create a specific pattern of harm. eBay accounts are typically linked to PayPal or a managed-payments account. A TRO served on eBay can freeze the seller's payment balance as well as any pending disbursements. For a seller running a high-volume account, even a short freeze can cascade into missed supplier payments and unfulfilled orders.

The anonymity layer adds a second complication. Schedule A complaints are filed under seal with the defendants identified only by store number or alias in an attached schedule. The seller's real identity – and real address – may not be disclosed to the court until after the TRO issues. That sequence matters for jurisdiction: if the plaintiff and the court have not examined where each defendant actually operates, the jurisdictional analysis is necessarily incomplete at the TRO stage. Courts are increasingly aware of this gap, which gives defendants a real procedural opening.

As enforcement automation has tightened across online marketplaces, the volume of Schedule A filings has grown substantially. More sellers are being swept into cases where the substantive connection between their specific listing and the plaintiff's alleged mark is tenuous. The jurisdictional defense can serve as a filter: even where a seller is not confident about the merits of the trademark claim, a genuine absence of forum contacts is a separate and independent ground for dismissal or transfer.

How the procedural path actually works after the TRO issues

The procedural sequence in a Schedule A case moves faster than most federal litigation, and the early steps largely determine whether the seller recovers their funds quickly or is drawn into extended proceedings. Here is the realistic sequence:

1. Discovery of the case. Most eBay sellers learn about the TRO when eBay notifies them that their account has been frozen or when a process server makes contact. The order may already be several days or weeks old.
2. Obtaining the complaint and TRO. Because the case was filed under seal, the seller or their counsel must move to unseal the docket to access the full complaint and schedule. The process for doing that – and why it matters strategically – is covered in detail at our analysis of de-anonymizing a Schedule A complaint.
3. Reviewing the jurisdictional basis. Counsel examines the complaint for any forum-specific allegations directed at the defendant: purchases made by test buyers in the forum state, listings explicitly targeting that state, or other contacts. Thin or absent allegations are the foundation of the motion.
4. Motion to dissolve the TRO or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This is typically the first substantive filing. The motion argues that the court lacks authority over this specific defendant and that, accordingly, the asset freeze should be lifted immediately. The briefing window is short – it is set by the TRO itself or by the court's scheduling order on the preliminary injunction hearing.
5. Preliminary injunction hearing. If the TRO has not been dissolved, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a preliminary injunction is warranted. The defendant's jurisdiction argument can be raised here as a threshold issue: if jurisdiction is absent, the court need not reach the merits.
6. Settlement or transfer. Many Schedule A cases resolve before a full merits hearing. A successful jurisdiction challenge can accelerate settlement on substantially better terms, because the plaintiff faces the prospect of refiling in the correct venue – which is expensive and uncertain. Transfer to the proper venue is also a possible outcome.

We regularly see sellers who waited too long at step one, believing the case would pass without their engagement. It rarely does. A default judgment can issue against a non-appearing defendant even in a case where jurisdiction was contestable, and default judgments in Schedule A matters can include injunctions and damages awards that affect the seller's ability to operate on any US marketplace.

What makes a personal jurisdiction argument strong – or weak?

Not every Schedule A defendant has a strong jurisdiction defense. The analysis depends on facts specific to the seller's operations, and those facts need to be gathered carefully before filing.

The argument is strongest when: the seller is based outside the United States and has no US entity; the seller has no contracts, warehouses, employees, or registered agents in the forum state; the seller's eBay account is registered to an address in a different state or country; and the plaintiff's complaint contains no forum-specific allegations beyond the general fact of selling through an online marketplace.

The argument weakens when: the seller has used a fulfillment center in the forum state; the plaintiff's investigators made test purchases with delivery addresses in the forum state, and the seller fulfilled those orders; the seller has previously appeared in litigation in that district; or the seller's eBay store explicitly advertised shipping to consumers in the forum state as part of a targeted campaign.

There is a middle category – sellers who have some connections to the forum state but not the kind that courts have consistently treated as "purposeful availment." In that zone, the outcome of a jurisdiction motion is genuinely uncertain, and the decision whether to file it must be weighed against the cost and delay of briefing, and against the alternative of moving directly to settlement. That trade-off is exactly the kind of analysis that requires a clear-eyed read of the complaint and the forum's recent case law.

One practical point: even a jurisdiction motion that is ultimately denied can serve a strategic purpose. It forces the plaintiff to commit to factual allegations about the defendant's contacts, which may then bind them in later proceedings. It also signals to the plaintiff that this defendant intends to contest the case – a signal that often shifts the settlement calculus.

The seller's real decision points: what to weigh and when

Being named in a Schedule A case does not mean automatic loss – that is a misconception that keeps sellers from taking useful action. The courts that issue TROs do so on an ex parte basis, without hearing from the defendant. The standard for a TRO is lower than for a final judgment. Defendants who appear, brief the issues, and challenge jurisdiction or the merits have meaningfully different outcomes than those who default.

The key decision points are:

Appear or not appear? Appearing costs money and time. Not appearing risks a default judgment that could eliminate the account permanently and create a damages liability that follows the seller across platforms. For most sellers with a viable business at stake, appearance is the correct choice.

Move on jurisdiction or go straight to the merits? If the jurisdiction argument is genuinely strong, it should be filed first. It is a threshold issue and, if successful, ends the matter in that forum without requiring the seller to litigate the trademark merits. If the jurisdiction argument is marginal, leading with a merits defense – challenging whether the seller's listing actually infringed – may be more efficient.

Litigate or settle? Schedule A plaintiffs often file cases at volume with an expectation that most defendants will pay a small settlement to exit the case. That strategy works because the cost of defending exceeds the settlement amount for many small sellers. A credible jurisdiction motion alters the math: it raises the plaintiff's cost of continuing, which creates real settlement leverage. In matters we handle, a well-timed challenge to jurisdiction or joinder regularly opens settlement discussions that were not available before the motion was filed.

Stay on eBay during the case? The TRO typically enjoins the defendant from continuing to sell the accused items. Violating that injunction would be extremely damaging. However, the seller's other listings – those not accused of infringement – are typically not covered by the order, and whether the eBay account freeze extends to those listings is a fact-specific question that counsel needs to address immediately with the platform.

A detailed overview of the entire defense process, from TRO issuance through final resolution, is available at our complete guide to Schedule A TRO defense for sellers.

What remains uncertain – and what eBay sellers should know about it

Personal jurisdiction doctrine in the context of online marketplace sellers is not settled. Different federal circuits apply the minimum-contacts analysis with different emphases. Some circuits are more receptive to arguments that national marketplace sales, without more, are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction in any single forum. Others have been more willing to find jurisdiction based on a relatively small number of sales to forum-state consumers.

The courts most frequently used by Schedule A plaintiffs have developed their own body of practice on these motions, and that practice continues to evolve as defendants mount more organized challenges. What was a novel argument two or three years ago may now have supporting precedent in that district – or may have been rejected in a way that changes the analysis. We work to track those developments as they emerge, because the strength of a jurisdiction argument is inseparable from the specific forum.

A second area of uncertainty is the interaction between personal jurisdiction and eBay's internal account-freeze procedures. A court order served on eBay triggers the platform's own compliance mechanisms, which do not always track the exact scope of the TRO. Getting the freeze on non-accused listings lifted often requires a separate track of communication with eBay's trust and safety team, running parallel to the litigation. That parallel track is not a legal proceeding – it is a business communication – but it matters enormously to the seller's cash flow during the pendency of the case.

A third question that remains live in some jurisdictions is whether a seller who challenges jurisdiction waives that defense by taking certain other actions in the litigation – for example, by negotiating with the plaintiff before filing the formal motion. The rules on waiver vary, and timing matters. A seller who has been informally communicating with plaintiff's counsel about settlement should discuss that history with their lawyer before any formal motions are filed.

One anonymized example from our practice illustrates the stakes. An eBay accessories seller (winter 2025) came to us several weeks after a TRO had issued in a Northern District case. The seller had fulfilled three test purchases to addresses in the forum state – a fact the plaintiff had documented carefully. The jurisdictional argument was available but not straightforward. We assessed the specific minimum-contacts showing against the forum's recent rulings, concluded the motion had a realistic chance but was not a certainty, and used its preparation as the basis for opening a settlement discussion that resolved the account freeze within a matter of weeks. The seller's non-accused listings were unfrozen earlier in that process through a parallel communication with eBay. That combination – litigation posture plus platform communication – is how these cases often resolve in practice, rather than through a single clean courtroom win.

A second example: an eBay electronics reseller (summer 2026) was named in a Southern District case alongside more than eighty other defendants. The complaint contained no forum-specific allegations against this seller – no test purchases, no targeted advertising, no fulfillment connections to the state. We filed the jurisdiction and joinder motions together. The plaintiff dismissed the seller from the case before the hearing date. The account freeze on the eBay payment balance was lifted shortly after the dismissal was filed. That outcome reflects the realistic upper end of what a strong, well-timed jurisdiction challenge can achieve – it is not a guarantee, but it illustrates why filing the motion at all can matter.

Related areas

• Schedule A / TRO Defense – the full scope of our federal marketplace defense work
• Amazon Account Reinstatement – deactivation and Plan of Action representation for Amazon sellers

If a first challenge or settlement discussion has already come back rejected or stalled, a second read of the complaint and jurisdiction facts can identify what was missed and whether any path forward remains open. Email info@tutamenlaw.com with a brief summary of the case posture and we will review it.

Frequently asked questions

How long does resolving personal jurisdiction defense in a Schedule A case usually take on eBay?

The timeline depends on the stage at which the defense is raised and how the plaintiff responds. A TRO motion-to-dissolve that succeeds at the threshold hearing can unlock a frozen eBay account within several weeks of the motion being filed. If the case moves to a full preliminary injunction briefing schedule and the plaintiff contests the jurisdiction argument, the process typically takes a few months. Settlement discussions triggered by a credible jurisdiction challenge can resolve in a shorter window – sometimes faster than the full briefing cycle. There is no single answer, because the pace is set by the court's scheduling orders and by the plaintiff's litigation choices, not by the defendant alone.

What are the main risks if I handle personal jurisdiction defense in a Schedule A case alone?

The principal risk is procedural waiver. Personal jurisdiction is a defense that can be waived if not raised in the defendant's first responsive pleading or motion. A seller who responds to a Schedule A complaint without including a jurisdiction challenge loses the ability to raise it later. Beyond waiver, the minimum-contacts analysis requires both a factual investigation into the seller's connections to the forum and a legal assessment of how the specific court has treated similar arguments. Sellers who file pro se motions without that research often concede the issue inadvertently or raise it in a form that the court treats as insufficiently developed. Default judgment – the risk of doing nothing – is more commonly understood, but the risk of appearing without proper advice is nearly as serious.

Do I need a lawyer for personal jurisdiction defense in a Schedule A case?

For practical purposes, yes. Federal civil procedure in the Schedule A context is demanding. The motions are time-sensitive, the case law is district-specific, and the interaction between the litigation track and the eBay platform-communication track requires experience with how both work. A seller who cannot afford specialist counsel should at minimum consult one before filing anything. The cost of early legal advice is almost always lower than the cost of correcting a procedural mistake made in the first filing. Attorney-led representation is also standard among Schedule A plaintiffs, who in most cases have experienced IP litigation teams filing on a volume basis.

About Tutamen

Tutamen is an independent law firm for online marketplace sellers. We represent Amazon, Walmart, Etsy and eBay sellers in account deactivations, frozen-funds recovery, intellectual-property disputes, arbitration and Notices of Dispute, and US federal Schedule A defense, plus EU marketplace regulation. Our work is attorney-led and confidential, with fees quoted up front. We act for founders, brand owners and in-house teams who need a specialist for a marketplace dispute. Our Schedule A practice covers TRO response, jurisdiction and joinder challenges, asset-freeze motions, and settlement. To discuss your situation, email info@tutamenlaw.com.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marketplace policies and the law change, and every account and case is different. For advice on your situation, contact Tutamen at info@tutamenlaw.com.