As in no other area of choice-of-law jurisprudence, courts have rejected application of conflicts principles to Blue Sky claims. This Article examines this “Blue Sky exception” to traditional conflicts law on two levels. First, this Article takes a value-neutral perspective to examine the rationales that courts have put forth in favor of this approach, concluding that these justifications lack persuasive force and, at times, even rely on incorrect statements of positive law. Next, switching to a normative analysis, the Article argues that the Blue Sky exception is undesirable as a matter of public policy, given its inconsistency with the principles, objectives, and values that underlie modern choice-of-law jurisprudence.