Key Takeaways
Federal courts are already recognizing the apparent breadth of the Ninth Circuit’s newly articulated approach to personal jurisdiction over interactive websites. Accordingly, online platforms and service providers should consider whether their business practices—such as their cookies and other analytical tools—could increase the risk they will be subject to personal jurisdiction in California under Briskin.
Last month, in Briskin, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Shopify, an e-commerce company. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., No. 22-15815, 2025 WL 1154075, at *14 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025) (en banc) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dis., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021)). The California plaintiff brought a putative class action against Shopify (a foreign corporation) asserting privacy-related claims in connection with his California purchase of clothing from a California retailer. Id. at *3. Plaintiff alleged that Shopify installed permanent cookies on his device and without his knowledge or consent, tracked his location, collected his online shopping data, and created and marketed a consumer profile containing his data. Id.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction, applying “traditional personal jurisdiction precedent to the ever-evolving world of e-commerce.” Id. Under the Calder test, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant where it: “(1) commit[ted] an intentional act, that is (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) which causes harm that the defendant knows will be suffered in the forum state.” Id. at *7 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)).
The Ninth Circuit focused on the second prong and found that Shopify “expressly aimed” at California “through its extraction, maintenance, and commercial distribution of the California consumers’ personal data in violation of California laws.” Id. at *11.
The Court situated Briskin within Ninth Circuit precedent on internet-based personal jurisdiction. Id. at *12. However, the Court overruled AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020), “and any other cases that require some sort of differential treatment of the forum state” to find express targeting. Briskin, 2025 WL 1154075, at *13. While the analyses tend to be fact specific and standards vary, e-commerce companies have been subject to personal jurisdiction in other circuits. For example, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have exercised personal jurisdiction over trademark infringement defendants based on online sales and shipments. NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 624 (7th Cir. 2022); Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1358 (11th Cir. 2013).
Recent federal court decisions citing Briskin have come out for and against exercising personal jurisdiction. For example, the Southern District of California exercised personal jurisdiction over a Missouri bank that “actively chose to transmit” a California resident’s disputed data to credit agencies. Hidalgo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., LNV Funding LLC, & MRV Bank, No. 3:24-CV-02386-BEN-JLB, 2025 WL 1370488, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2025). The court noted that “Briskin underscores that even automated processes, like Shopify’s cookie installation, qualify as intentional when part of a defendant’s deliberate business strategy.” Id. at *3. However, the Western District of Washington found no express aiming based on allegations that an interactive website transacted business with Washington residents who accessed unlawful content. Brown v. Does 1-20, No. 3:25-CV-05256-LK, 2025 WL 1434892, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2025).
