Women are drastically underrepresented in positions of power and prominence in the United States. As of 2021, women hold only thirty percent of board seats on the S&P 500. The number is much smaller for private corporations. One study found that in 2020, women occupied only eleven percent of board seats for private corporations. Given these statistics, it is unsurprising that a 2021
study predicts that corporate boards will not reach gender parity until 2032.

This underrepresentation matters for several reasons. First, the lack of gender equity on corporate boards is blatantly sexist. This disparity should matter for anyone who wants to reduce societal inequalities. Second, boards with high female representation are correlated with better outcomes for workers. Notably, there is a positive correlation between boards with high female representation and an increased receptiveness to workers’ needs. Third, gender-equitable boards help corporate stocks. This is attributed to higher returns on equity and better stock price informativeness.6 Lastly, having more female-led companies may reduce economic recessions. Research on the 2008 financial crisis indicates that banks run by men took more risks than banks run by women, leading to a financial recession.

This Comment will evaluate whether the Supreme Court of the United States’ interpretation of personal jurisdiction has progressed at the necessary speed to adequately address the issues arising out of Americans’ dependence on Amazon. More generally, it will look at the implications of the Supreme Court’s current understanding of personal jurisdiction and assess whether the current state of the doctrine is sheltering corporations behind new types of business models. By looking specifically at products liability litigation involving goods sold on Amazon, it will conclude that the expansion of e-commerce has challenged the adequacy of current approaches to personal jurisdiction and products liability disputes. The solution to the issues caused by this stagnant nature of law requires simultaneous specific personal jurisdiction and products liability doctrinal reform.