In a recent ruling, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied QVC’s motion to dismiss a product liability suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court held that Pennsylvania was not an inconvenient forum, and that QVC could properly be sued in its home state.
In Charles v. QVC, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109378, 2025 WL 1648432 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2025), plaintiff, Dianne Charles, a resident of Trinidad and Tobago, alleged that she suffered serious injuries when a pressure cooker purchased through QVC’s online platform exploded. QVC moved to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds, contending that it should be litigated in Trinidad and Tobago, where the incident occurred and where most witnesses and relevant evidence were located, rather than in Pennsylvania, where QVC is headquartered.
Plaintiff argued that QVC had strong ties to Pennsylvania, citing its headquarters and broadcast facilities in West Chester, Pennsylvania. She emphasized that QVC directed private-label branding, marketing, and product selection from Pennsylvania, making it the decision-making hub for QVC. The pressure cooker in question was manufactured in China and shipped through North Carolina and Florida to Trinidad. Although it never physically passed through Pennsylvania, it was marketed and branded from Pennsylvania.
In deciding the motion to dismiss, the Court applied the three-part test set forth in Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008), which considers (1) whether an adequate alternative forum exists, (2) the level of deference to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, and (3) private and public interest factors. The Court agreed that Trinidad and Tobago was an adequate forum, as QVC had consented to jurisdiction there, and local law allows for negligence and misrepresentation claims. However, in reaching the second step, the Court gave the plaintiff more deference than is usually afforded to foreign plaintiffs, due to QVC’s extensive operations in Pennsylvania. As for the third factor, the Court acknowledged that damages evidence and medical records were in Trinidad. However, the bulk of the liability-related material, such as branding, marketing, and corporate decisions, was located in the U.S. and controlled by QVC. Importantly, the advertising and product endorsements at issue originated from QVC’s Pennsylvania studio. The Court found this created a strong connection between the forum and the alleged wrongdoing. The Court also considered public interest factors and noted Pennsylvania’s interest in regulating businesses based in the state and ensuring consumer protection. After weighing all of these factors, the Court held that litigating in Pennsylvania would not be unduly burdensome for QVC and denied the Motion to Dismiss.
This decision carries important implications for businesses operating or marketing out of Pennsylvania. It appears to confirm that substantial in-state branding and corporate decision-making can establish a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, even when the injury occurs elsewhere and the product never physically enters the forum state. Companies engaged in direct-to-consumer sales or brand management from Pennsylvania should recognize that these activities may subject them to litigation within the state.
The Charles decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Conrad James Benedetto, Esq. and/or Patrick Henry, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.