Why can the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws produce different results in different U.S. states?

The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is not binding law, but rather a set of recommendations synthesized by the American Law Institute. Because it is not a mandatory code, its application can lead to divergent results across U.S. states for several reasons:1

• Lack of Priority: The criteria provided by the Restatement (Second) are not ranked in order of importance. Consequently, different courts may assign different weights to these factors, leading to inconsistent outcomes.1
• Judicial Leeway: Section 6 of the Restatement outlines general principles—such as party expectations, societal interests, and fairness—that are broad enough to accommodate various doctrinal schools of thought. This gives courts significant discretion in how they interpret and apply these principles.1
• Issue-by-Issue Analysis: The Restatement (Second) requires that choice-of-law determinations be made for each specific issue in a case, a practice known as dépeçage. By splitting a case into smaller components, courts may apply different laws to different issues, which complicates the process and reduces the consistency of legal precedents.1

Ultimately, while influential, the Restatement (Second) relies on the development of consistent case law, which naturally varies from state to state.1