A group of plaintiffs sued Bristol-Myers Squibb in California over injuries allegedly caused by Plavix, but most plaintiffs were not California residents and did not allege that they obtained the drug or were injured there. The California courts found specific jurisdiction based on the company’s extensive California activities and the similarity of the claims. The United States Supreme Court reversed. It held that specific jurisdiction requires an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, ordinarily through the defendant’s purposeful contacts with the forum that give rise to the claims. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s general business activities in California did not establish that connection for the nonresident plaintiffs. The Court rejected a sliding-scale approach that allowed unrelated forum contacts and similar claims to substitute for claim-specific affiliation. It reversed and remanded the judgment allowing the nonresident claims to proceed in California. Justice Sotomayor dissented.