Ken Paxton’s Controversial Forum Shopping Tactics in Texas Lawsuits

Walking past the Texas State Capitol in Austin, you can almost feel the gravity of the law. It’s a city where the legal elite—the high-powered lobbyists and the seasoned judges—operate under a set of understood norms. But if you drive a few hours east toward the Louisiana border, the scenery changes, and so does the legal landscape. In the quiet, three-story brick courthouses of places like Panola County, the rules of engagement seem to be shifting. We’re seeing a phenomenon that used to be the bogeyman of Texas conservatism: forum shopping. The irony is that the man currently steering the ship, Attorney General Ken Paxton, spent years warning the U.S. Supreme Court that this very practice was “pernicious” and eroded public confidence in the justice system.

The High-Stakes Game of Legal Geography

For the uninitiated, forum shopping isn’t just a quirk of the courtroom; it’s a strategic maneuver. It’s the act of seeking out a specific judge or jury that a plaintiff believes will be most sympathetic to their cause, rather than filing in the venue where the alleged wrongdoing actually occurred. For decades, Texas was the “Wild West” of this practice. Plaintiffs’ attorneys would flock to small counties known for generous juries and friendly judges to secure massive payouts from corporations. This became such a problem that in 1995, the Texas Legislature stepped in with laws requiring a “substantial part” of a lawsuit’s claims to be connected to the county where it was filed.

Fast forward to 2026, and the script has flipped. Ken Paxton is now the one playing the map. Take the recent Tylenol litigation. Instead of filing in Travis County—where the state’s administrative heart beats and where complex litigation is the norm—Paxton’s office targeted Panola County. Why? It’s a community of 23,000 people, a stronghold for the Trump administration, and presided over by a Republican judge. The lawsuit, which echoes claims made by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Regarding links between acetaminophen and autism, is a prime example of “jurisdiction shopping.” When the Panola County judge threw out most of the claims, Paxton didn’t simply appeal; he doubled down by filing a new case in Bailey County, a tiny community on the New Mexico border.

The “Internet Ubiquity” Loophole

What’s perhaps more concerning for the business community here in Austin is the legal theory Paxton’s office is attempting to normalize. In cases like the one against the gaming platform Roblox, the AG’s office argued that because the company has a website accessible via the internet, it can be sued in any Texas county—even King County, a ranching area with almost no incorporated towns. This “ubiquity” argument is a direct assault on the 1995 restrictions. If the courts accept the premise that a website constitutes a “substantial connection” to every square inch of the state, the protections meant to prevent forum shopping effectively vanish.

This creates a precarious environment for any company operating in the digital space. If you’re a tech startup based near the University of Texas or a mid-sized firm in the Domain, the idea that you could be hauled into a rural court hundreds of miles away—simply because someone in that county has an internet connection—is a nightmare scenario. It transforms the legal process from a search for justice into a game of strategic positioning. While some might argue this is just “aggressive lawyering,” legal scholars from St. Mary’s University School of Law and SMU suggest it’s a dangerous precedent that could allow the state to file meritless suits in the most biased venues possible.

The Erosion of Judicial Trust

The friction doesn’t just exist between the AG and the defendants; it’s bleeding into the judiciary. The 15th Court of Appeals has already had to step in multiple times, overruling lower court decisions that allowed these venue choices to stand. When a higher court finds that a judge “abused their discretion” by refusing to move a case to a more appropriate venue, it signals a breakdown in the system. The real danger here is the loss of predictability. Law thrives on predictability. When the rules of venue are treated as suggestions rather than requirements, the risk for every business in Texas increases.

We’ve seen this play out in political arenas as well, such as the lawsuit against Beto O’Rourke’s organization in Tarrant County. By choosing a venue based on a planned rally rather than the organization’s headquarters, the AG’s office demonstrated that the goal isn’t just legal victory, but political leverage. It’s a strategy that prioritizes the “win” over the integrity of the process, a move that would have been condemned by the very conservative lawmakers who wrote the forum-shopping laws thirty years ago.

Navigating the New Legal Frontier in Austin

Given my background in analyzing the intersection of government policy and local economic impact, it’s clear that the “Paxton Pivot” is creating a new set of risks for Texas entities. If your business is operating in Austin or the surrounding Hill Country, you can no longer assume that your home jurisdiction will protect you from a statewide action. The “internet ubiquity” theory means you are potentially “present” in all 254 Texas counties.

If you find your organization caught in a jurisdictional tug-of-war, you shouldn’t rely on general practice lawyers. You need a specialized team that understands the nuances of the Texas Government Code and the current mood of the appellate courts. Here are the three types of local professionals you should be vetting right now:

• Complex Commercial Litigators: Look for firms with a proven track record of handling “multi-district” or “multi-venue” disputes. You need someone who doesn’t just know how to litigate, but knows how to file a motion to transfer venue that will actually hold up in the 15th Court of Appeals.
• Regulatory Compliance Specialists: Many of Paxton’s recent “wins” (even the temporary ones) stem from technicalities, such as whether a company is registered with the Secretary of State. Hire a specialist to perform a “jurisdictional audit” to ensure every administrative box is checked, leaving no opening for “sleight of hand” lawsuits.
• Appellate Strategists: Because the trial courts in rural counties may be more inclined to keep a high-profile case, your real battle is often won at the appellate level. Look for attorneys who have previously clerked for Texas appellate judges and understand the specific precedents being set regarding consumer protection laws.

The goal isn’t to fear the system, but to understand how the rules are being rewritten in real-time. In a state as large as Texas, where the law can feel different depending on which side of the Brazos you’re on, having a localized, strategic defense is the only way to ensure you aren’t a pawn in a larger political game.

Ready to find trusted professionals? Browse our complete directory of top-rated forumshoppingjurisdictionshoppingkenpaxtontexas experts in the Austin area today.