Why are some jurisdiction rules called exorbitant rules?

In the context of conflict of laws, rules are labeled as "exorbitant" because they are designed specifically to favor local plaintiffs, often by asserting jurisdiction on grounds that lack a substantial connection to the dispute.1

These rules are considered excessive or "exorbitant" because they allow courts to exercise authority over defendants based on factors that may be unrelated to the litigation itself. Examples include:1

• Nationality: Granting jurisdiction simply because the plaintiff possesses the nationality of the forum state.1
• Presence of Property: Permitting a local plaintiff to sue an absent defendant based solely on the existence of any property the defendant owns within the jurisdiction, regardless of whether that property is relevant to the case.1
• Transient Jurisdiction: Asserting authority over a defendant who is served with legal documents while merely passing through or temporarily present in the territory.1

Such rules, along with other broad jurisdictional assertions like the American "doing business" standard, are a significant source of international tension, as they can lead to forum shopping and complicate the recognition of judgments across borders.1