Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, 101 F.4th 90

Plaintiff Scott Rosenthal, a Massachusetts resident, filed a putative class action against Bloomingdales.com, LLC, alleging violations of Massachusetts privacy laws.
Rosenthal claimed Bloomingdales used session replay code (SRC) from third-party providers to record user activity on its website, including his own in Massachusetts.
Bloomingdales is an Ohio LLC with its principal place of business in New York; it operates stores in Massachusetts but Rosenthal's claims related only to online conduct.
The District Court dismissed the case for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, finding Rosenthal had not established sufficient contacts between Bloomingdales’ conduct and Massachusetts.
On appeal, the First Circuit focused on whether Bloomingdales purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Massachusetts by using SRC on its website.
The court ultimately affirmed the dismissal, finding no purposeful availment or sufficient targeting of Massachusetts users by Bloomingdales.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of SRC on the website creates specific personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts	Deployment of SRC targeted Massachusetts users and unlawfully intercepted their data	SRC was deployed to all users regardless of location; no intentional targeting of the forum	No specific jurisdiction; SRC use lacked sufficient forum-targeted conduct
Whether Bloomingdales purposefully availed itself of Massachusetts law by its online conduct	Bloomingdales cultivated a market in Massachusetts, benefitting from in-state users' data	Operating a nationally accessible website without more does not constitute purposeful availment	No purposeful availment; mere website accessibility is insufficient
Relevance of prior First Circuit precedent (Plixer, Knox) to online contacts	Prior cases support that targeting or serving a state market suffices for jurisdiction	Those cases involved more deliberate, specific conduct tying defendants to the state	Existing precedent does not extend jurisdiction to this situation
Whether website features (like store locator) are enough to create forum-specific contacts	Features that allow input of location inform Bloomingdales of user’s location	Such features do not tie user activity definitively to their actual location or demonstrate targeting	Website features are insufficient; no evidence Bloomingdales specifically targeted MA

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established the "minimum contacts" standard for personal jurisdiction)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (purposeful availment is required for jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes general and specific jurisdiction)
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (U.S. 2019) (continuous and deliberate exploitation of state market supports jurisdiction)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (focus is on defendant's contacts with the forum, not plaintiff’s residence)
Ticketmaster-N.Y., Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201 (1st Cir. 1994) (personal jurisdiction requires more than speculative contacts)