How does forum shopping influence a plaintiff’s choice of court?

Forum shopping occurs when a plaintiff strategically selects a court jurisdiction to gain procedural or substantive legal advantages that are unavailable in their home country or other potential venues.1

Plaintiffs often engage in this practice to exploit variations in liability standards, seek the availability of punitive damages, secure a jury trial, or benefit from easier pretrial discovery processes. Additionally, a plaintiff may choose a forum where the defendant holds assets, ensuring that any potential judgment can be satisfied.1

This choice is often influenced by the "homeward trend" in modern conflict of laws, where courts—particularly in the United States—may apply the lex fori (the law of the forum) because they determine their own state has a greater interest in the case.23

However, this strategy is not absolute. Courts in common-law countries may dismiss such cases under the doctrine of forum non conveniens if they determine the forum was chosen solely to gain unfair advantages in a dispute with no connection to that jurisdiction. Conversely, civil-law countries generally do not dismiss actions on these grounds, as their jurisdictional allocations are often strictly defined by regulation.1