The comments to amended Rule 106 state, “a court may, in proper circumstances, permit service of citation electronically,” but they provide no real guidance as to the standard of evidence required. Tex. R. Civ. P. 106 (cmts). Thus, it may fall to plaintiffs to educate the judiciary on the technology proposed for substitute service, its limitations and capabilities, and how to prove a defendant regularly or recently used that technology.

Service of process is the procedure by which a party gives official notice to another party of the initiation of a legal action against that party, such that a court takes jurisdiction over the claim and the other party is legally required to respond. As of January 1, 2021, litigants may serve a lawsuit upon a defendant by way of transmission to a defendant’s social media or email account.Under the newly amended Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 106, litigants may serve a defendant “electronically by social media, email, or other technology” if the traditional methods of service, such as personal service or substituted service through certified or registered mail are unsuccessful. In other words, service via social media or email requires court approval and will be permitted only upon a showing that service attempts in-person or through certified mail were unsuccessful.

In re: Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd, No. 2024-103 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2024)On January 26, 2024, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus to vacate an order permitting Rotolight Limited (“Rotolight”) to serve Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. (“Aputure”) through email to Aputure’s in-house counsel.Rotolight and Aputure manufacture and sell LED lights used in photography and filmmaking. In June 2023, Rotolight filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against Aputure, a China-based company, for patent infringement. Rotolight made several unsuccessful attempts to serve Aputure at a California address obtained from multiple online business databases that had the same zip code as an office listed on Aputure’s website. In September 2023, Rotolight moved for substitute service pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b) to seek permission to serve Aputure by emailing Aputure’s legal counsel.On October 16, 2023, the Eastern District of Texas granted Rotolight’s motion for substitute service to serve Aputure via email. The court found that Rotolight had attempted service enough times on Aputure at locations reported to be its place of residence in California and that service of the complaint and summons on Aputure’s in-house counsel’s email address would be effective to give notice to Aputure of the suit. In response, Aputure filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit to vacate the order and deny the request for substituted service because service by email was improper and service should have been attempted through the Hague Convention since Aputure is based in China.The Federal Circuit denied Aputure’s petition because Aputure failed to satisfy the three conditions in order to grant a writ of mandamus: (1) the petitioner must have “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] de

s may become commonplace as the use of such technologies likewise continues to increase and evolve.In re Three Arrows Capital Ltd, Case No. 22-10920 (MG) 2022 WL 17985969, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022). United States District Courts have authorized service via Twitter and social media, however, the decision by Judge Glenn is the first published decision permitting service through social media in a bankruptcy case. See Nowak v. XAPO, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03643-BLF, 2020 WL 5877576, *4 (N.D. Cal. October 2, 2020) (Service of process by Facebook and Twitter appropriate alternative service after exhausting reasonable efforts to serve defendant in Indonesia.); Birmingham v. Doe, 593 F. Supp. 3d 1151, 1159-60 (S.D. Fla. 2022) (Alternative service by social media messaging allowed as to foreign defendants living outside Ukraine).LCX AG v. 1.27M U.S. Dollar Coin, Index No. 15644/2022, Doc. No. 112, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 22, 2022). Other states have service laws similar to New York. See, e.g., Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2) ("citation may be served by…in any other manner, including electronically by social media, email, or other technology, that the statement or other evidence shows will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit.").