Don't be so confident, then. I'm not either, but it doesn't take much looking around to see that the situation isn't as simple as corporate presence. A company can be subject to the state's jurisdiction for claims related to the contacts a company does have – and relatedness is not just a matter of directly causing harm or some other outcome. [0]

What you pointed out actually demonstrates that point: even though manufacturers aren't selling directly to consumers, they're still selling there via distributors, and are still subject to product liability suits, etc. The distributor doesn't shield them, in other words.

Here's what the Court said in Ford:

> Specific jurisdiction is different: It covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name “purposeful availment.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The defendant, we have said, must take “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The contacts must be the defendant’s own choice and not “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). They must show that the defendant deliberately “reached out beyond” its home—by, for example, “exploi[ting] a market” in the forum State or entering a contractual relationship centered there. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Whether only advertising could be enough hasn't been definitively settled, but it certainly could count as "purposeful availment" whereby the company "reache[s] out beyond its home" and seeks to "exploi[t] a market" in the state.

[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-7-1...