Illinois Creates ‘Consent by Registration’ Jurisdiction for Toxic Tort Claims

At a Glance

• Illinois courts now have expanded authority to hear toxic tort cases against out-of-state corporations.
• General jurisdiction now applies to companies that register or conduct any business in Illinois, even if the alleged exposure occurred elsewhere and the business activity is unrelated, so long as one codefendant is properly subject to jurisdiction in Illinois.
• To mitigate exposure and prepare for potential litigation, we suggest eight steps to consider.

On August 15, 2025, Illinois Gov. Pritzker signed Illinois Senate Bill 328 into law as Public Act 104-0352. This legislation significantly changes 735 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/2-209, the Illinois long-arm statute, and impacts sections 13.20 and 13.70 of the Business Corporation Act of 1983. The result: a major expansion of general jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in Illinois toxic tort matters.

What Has Changed?

General jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear any type of case against a defendant, regardless of where the events in question occurred. General jurisdiction applies where a defendant is “at home.”¹ A corporation is typically at home in the states where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.² Under the new law, defendant corporations may now be subject to general personal jurisdiction in Illinois if they “consent” to jurisdiction, but only in toxic tort matters where at least one codefendant is already subject to specific jurisdiction in Illinois. A defendant may “consent” to jurisdiction in Illinois by:

• Being registered to do business in Illinois; or
• Transacting any business in the state, even without registering.

The statute represents a significant shift from the traditional forms of jurisdiction and substantially lowers the barrier for Illinois courts to assert authority over out-of-state companies.

Shift in Legal Landscape

This amendment also marks a reversal of Illinois’ prior stance. In 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court in Aspen American Insurance Company v. Interstate Warehousing Inc. held that merely registering to do business and appointing a registered agent did not constitute consent to general jurisdiction.³ With the new amendment, however, Illinois now explicitly provides that registration constitutes consent to general jurisdiction, but only for toxic tort claims.

This development brings Illinois in line with Pennsylvania as the only states with long-arm statutes that explicitly confer general jurisdiction over businesses based on their registration within the state. Notably, however, the Illinois statute applies to a much narrower category of claims. While the Pennsylvania statute, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., requires consent to general jurisdiction for all claims, the Illinois provision is restricted solely to toxic tort litigation.⁴ Though narrower in terms of the claims it applies to, the Illinois statute is broader in terms of what constitutes consent. Pennsylvania requires that corporations register to do business to consent to jurisdiction. In contrast, the Illinois statute implies consent when a corporation transacts business in Illinois, even if it did not register to do business. This represents a significant departure from Mallory and is a space to watch.

Impact on Toxic Tort Litigation and Potential Defenses

The Illinois statute has significant implications for out-of-state defendants. Plaintiffs can now sue out-of-state companies for alleged exposure to any “toxic”⁵ substance, as defined under the Uniform Hazardous Substances Act of Illinois, even if the incident occurred elsewhere.

For example, imagine an Illinois resident sues a California pesticide manufacturer in Illinois court, claiming injury from exposure that occurred in California. If the manufacturer “transacted business” in Illinois (e.g., by selling unrelated products in Illinois), and the suit also named an Illinois retailer as a codefendant, the manufacturer could be subject to jurisdiction in Illinois, even though the alleged exposure happened in California.

This scheme is particularly significant in asbestos and other toxic tort cases where plaintiffs routinely name many defendants. In these situations, the codefendant requirement will often be met, given the high possibility that at least one defendant will be subject to specific jurisdiction in Illinois. Given this jurisdictional hook, defendants should be mindful of the potential for plaintiffs to improperly join Illinois codefendants as a tactic to establish jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. Out-of-state defendants should closely examine the factual and legal grounds for naming Illinois codefendants and challenge claims where joinder appears purely jurisdictional.

Effective Dates

While the new statute is currently in effect, the periods where a corporation is deemed to consent to general jurisdiction vary as follows:

• For corporations registered to do business in Illinois before August 15, 2025, consent begins on the next annual report deadline, regardless of whether the report is filed.⁶
• For corporations that register to do business in Illinois after August 15, 2025, consent begins immediately.⁷
• For unregistered companies, “consent” begins when they transact business in Illinois without authorization and lasts for 180 days after each such act.⁸

Consent to such general jurisdiction only terminates upon formal withdrawal from the state.

What Should You Do?

Companies that register to do business or transact business in Illinois potentially face an increased risk of being sued there for toxic tort claims arising anywhere. To mitigate exposure and prepare for potential litigation, consider the following steps.

1. Review Registration Status in Illinois

Determine whether your company is currently registered to do business in Illinois. If your company is registered, recognize the heightened risk of being sued in Illinois for claims arising anywhere, not just those linked to local conduct.

2. Evaluate Business Activity in Illinois

Even if your company is not formally registered, transacting business in Illinois could still trigger “implied consent” to general jurisdiction for a 180-day window following the business activity. If feasible, limit contacts with Illinois to reduce exposure, or restructure business operations to mitigate the jurisdictional reach of the new law.

3. Map Toxic Tort Exposure

Identify whether your company handles or manufactures substances that may meet Illinois’ broad definition of “toxic” substances. If you have exposure, consider enhancing monitoring and liability planning.

4. Assess Exposure to Illinois Codefendants

The statute requires that at least one codefendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois. Review incoming toxic tort litigation to determine if you are named alongside Illinois-based entities or those otherwise subject to Illinois jurisdiction.

5. Consider Withdrawal of Illinois Registration

If your company no longer needs to transact business in Illinois, formally withdrawing your registration may reduce exposure to general jurisdiction for future claims.

6. Update Litigation, Insurance and Risk Management Plans

Given the increased likelihood of being sued in Illinois, coordinate with legal counsel and insurers to reassess litigation strategy, jurisdictional defenses and insurance coverage.

7. Monitor Legal Developments

Constitutional challenges to Illinois’ statute and related venue or choice-of-law issues are likely to evolve. Keep up to date with new case law, regulatory responses and legislative developments.

8. Forum Selection and Choice-of-Law

Consider revisiting contract terms, such as forum selection and choice-of-law clauses, to reduce exposure in Illinois.