87 F.4th 404
9th Cir.2023Background:
- Plaintiff Brandon Briskin, a California resident, purchased goods from a merchant website (IABMFG) while physically in California; the site used Shopify’s e-commerce/payment platform.
- Shopify (Shopify, Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., and Shopify Payments) collected, stored, profiled, installed cookies on Briskin’s device, and shared/transmitted payment data (including to Stripe).
- Briskin sued in Northern District of California asserting California privacy and unfair-competition claims on behalf of a putative California-class of consumers whose payment information was submitted via Shopify while located in California.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Briskin appealed. Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and took plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true.
- The Ninth Circuit held Shopify not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because Shopify did not “expressly aim” its data-collection and retention conduct at California; affirmation of dismissal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shopify is subject to specific jurisdiction in California based on extracting/retaining consumer data from a California purchaser | Briskin: Shopify electronically reached into California and expressly aimed its conduct by collecting, storing, and sharing Californians’ payment data | Shopify: Platform is nationwide and indifferent to purchaser location; it did not target California specifically | Held: No specific jurisdiction — Shopify did not expressly aim its conduct at California under Calder/Walden framework |
| Whether Shopify’s broader California contacts (contracts with CA merchants, LA office, fulfillment center, merchant base) satisfy the "arise out of or relate to" requirement | Briskin: Those contacts show Shopify’s ties to California and support jurisdiction | Shopify: Those contacts are unrelated to plaintiff’s data-extraction injury and thus cannot support specific jurisdiction | Held: Broader contacts do not cause or relate to Briskin’s injury; they are insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction |
| Whether the plaintiff’s presence in California or foreseeable injury there suffices to establish express aiming | Briskin: He was physically in California and suffered harm there, so defendant targeted California consumers | Shopify: Walden forbids tethering jurisdiction to plaintiff’s forum connections; defendant-focused contacts matter | Held: Plaintiff’s location/injury alone is insufficient; express aiming requires defendant’s contacts with the forum itself |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should have been permitted | Briskin: District court should have allowed jurisdictional discovery to investigate Shopify’s CA contacts | Shopify: Plaintiff provided only cursory requests and no showing that discovery would change outcome | Held: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; plaintiff failed to show likely substantial prejudice from lack of discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (Calder/Walden principle: jurisdiction hinges on defendant’s contacts with the forum, not plaintiff’s forum connections)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (operation of a website plus forum-specific focus or targeted audience can establish express aiming)
- AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (globally accessible website without forum-specific focus does not establish express aiming)
- Will Co. v. Lee, 47 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2022) (forum-targeted technology and U.S.-focused features support express aiming)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) ("arise out of or relate to" requires a real limit; systematic service of a market can support jurisdiction)
- Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085 (9th Cir. 2023) (distinguishes online sale/distribution of physical goods from other internet activity for express-aiming analysis)
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (passive website alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction)