Due process and fairness forbid jurisdiction in the absence of minimum contacts, convenience and fairness. California's interest in the outcome of the case is minimal since the only issue in the case is the claim of a Taiwanese corporation for indemnification from a Japanese corporation. Neither of the parties is located in California, and the transaction that forms the basis of the plaintiff's indemnification claim was the shipment of products from Japan to Taiwan. The plaintiff fails to show that it would be more convenient to litigate its claim in California, while the burden on Asahi Metal would be great. Thus, the exercise of California jurisdiction would be unreasonable and unfair. 

​

On one hand, Brennan concurred that the result reached by the Court's majority was correct on the question of fairness. However, he ruled that the portion of the Court's majority opinion that deals with placing the product ing the stream of commerce is incorrect, since the benefits of commerce come to a defendant both directly and indirectly. Thus, purposeful conduct is not required.