Ninth Circuit Considers Personal Jurisdiction Over Online Businesses
In the age of e-commerce, many consumer class actions involve goods and services purchased online. Those online purchases have created legal challenges for determining when an online sale may subject a party to personal jurisdiction.
In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers much of the Western United States, including California) clarified that a defendant who “sells a physical product via an interactive website and causes that product to be delivered to the forum” has “purposefully directed its conduct at the forum” and may be subject to personal jurisdiction there. Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2023). But the Ninth Circuit soon reached a different result in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., where it held that an online payment processor was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California simply because it processed payments for goods sold to California residents. 87 F.4th 404, 409 (9th Cir. 2023).
“When a company operates a nationally available e-commerce payment platform and is indifferent to the location of end-users,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, “the extraction and retention of consumer data, without more, does not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum where the online purchase was made.” Id. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Herbal Brands because it involved the “online sale of physical products.” Id. at 422. And even if defendants like Shopify “benefit[] from consumers who are present in California,” the Briskin court found that this did not subject those defendants to personal jurisdiction there. Id. at 423.
Many payment processors and other online businesses were relieved by this opinion. So long as they do not ship physical products into California and do not expressly target their activities toward California, they could rest easy knowing that they would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in California—one of the world’s largest hotbeds of consumer class action litigation. But those businesses should be aware that the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Briskin and agreed to reconsider whether online businesses like Shopify could be subject to personal jurisdiction in California. And while it is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit will reach a different result in its en banc opinion, several judges expressed concern during oral argument that Shopify’s position—which the Ninth Circuit initially adopted—would leave consumers without redress in any jurisdiction.
Until the Ninth Circuit issues its new opinion, there is no way to know whether online-only businesses like Shopify will be subject to personal jurisdiction in California going forward. The court will want to ensure that those businesses will be subject to personal jurisdiction somewhere without subjecting them to personal jurisdiction everywhere their websites are accessible. But in the meantime, businesses that operate websites that are accessible to California consumers should remain vigilant. After all, California has some of the strictest consumer privacy laws in the United States, and those laws have led to a proliferation of consumer privacy class actions involving defendants’ websites. Briskin gave some of those defendants a viable personal jurisdiction defense, but that defense could soon disappear.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
“When a company operates a nationally available e-commerce payment platform and is indifferent to the location of end-users,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, “the extraction and retention of consumer data, without more, does not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum where the online purchase was made.” Id. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Herbal Brands because it involved the “online sale of physical products.” Id. at 422. And even if defendants like Shopify “benefit[] from consumers who are present in California,” the Briskin court found that this did not subject those defendants to personal jurisdiction there. Id. at 423.
Many payment processors and other online businesses were relieved by this opinion. So long as they do not ship physical products into California and do not expressly target their activities toward California, they could rest easy knowing that they would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in California—one of the world’s largest hotbeds of consumer class action litigation. But those businesses should be aware that the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Briskin and agreed to reconsider whether online businesses like Shopify could be subject to personal jurisdiction in California. And while it is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit will reach a different result in its en banc opinion, several judges expressed concern during oral argument that Shopify’s position—which the Ninth Circuit initially adopted—would leave consumers without redress in any jurisdiction.
Until the Ninth Circuit issues its new opinion, there is no way to know whether online-only businesses like Shopify will be subject to personal jurisdiction in California going forward. The court will want to ensure that those businesses will be subject to personal jurisdiction somewhere without subjecting them to personal jurisdiction everywhere their websites are accessible. But in the meantime, businesses that operate websites that are accessible to California consumers should remain vigilant. After all, California has some of the strictest consumer privacy laws in the United States, and those laws have led to a proliferation of consumer privacy class actions involving defendants’ websites. Briskin gave some of those defendants a viable personal jurisdiction defense, but that defense could soon disappear.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In the age of e-commerce, many consumer class actions involve goods and services purchased online. Those online purchases have created legal challenges for determining when an online sale may subject a party to personal jurisdiction.
In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers much of the Western United States, including California) clarified that a defendant who “sells a physical product via an interactive website and causes that product to be delivered to the forum” has “purposefully directed its conduct at the forum” and may be subject to personal jurisdiction there. Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2023). But the Ninth Circuit soon reached a different result in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., where it held that an online payment processor was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California simply because it processed payments for goods sold to California residents. 87 F.4th 404, 409 (9th Cir. 2023).
“When a company operates a nationally available e-commerce payment platform and is indifferent to the location of end-users,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, “the extraction and retention of consumer data, without more, does not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum where the online purchase was made.” Id. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Herbal Brands because it involved the “online sale of physical products.” Id. at 422. And even if defendants like Shopify “benefit[] from consumers who are present in California,” the Briskin court found that this did not subject those defendants to personal jurisdiction there. Id. at 423.
Many payment processors and other online businesses were relieved by this opinion. So long as they do not ship physical products into California and do not expressly target their activities toward California, they could rest easy knowing that they would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in California—one of the world’s largest hotbeds of consumer class action litigation. But those businesses should be aware that the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Briskin and agreed to reconsider whether online businesses like Shopify could be subject to personal jurisdiction in California. And while it is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit will reach a different result in its en banc opinion, several judges expressed concern during oral argument that Shopify’s position—which the Ninth Circuit initially adopted—would leave consumers without redress in any jurisdiction.
Until the Ninth Circuit issues its new opinion, there is no way to know whether online-only businesses like Shopify will be subject to personal jurisdiction in California going forward. The court will want to ensure that those businesses will be subject to personal jurisdiction somewhere without subjecting them to personal jurisdiction everywhere their websites are accessible. But in the meantime, businesses that operate websites that are accessible to California consumers should remain vigilant. After all, California has some of the strictest consumer privacy laws in the United States, and those laws have led to a proliferation of consumer privacy class actions involving defendants’ websites. Briskin gave some of those defendants a viable personal jurisdiction defense, but that defense could soon disappear.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
“When a company operates a nationally available e-commerce payment platform and is indifferent to the location of end-users,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, “the extraction and retention of consumer data, without more, does not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction in the forum where the online purchase was made.” Id. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Herbal Brands because it involved the “online sale of physical products.” Id. at 422. And even if defendants like Shopify “benefit[] from consumers who are present in California,” the Briskin court found that this did not subject those defendants to personal jurisdiction there. Id. at 423.
Many payment processors and other online businesses were relieved by this opinion. So long as they do not ship physical products into California and do not expressly target their activities toward California, they could rest easy knowing that they would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in California—one of the world’s largest hotbeds of consumer class action litigation. But those businesses should be aware that the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Briskin and agreed to reconsider whether online businesses like Shopify could be subject to personal jurisdiction in California. And while it is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit will reach a different result in its en banc opinion, several judges expressed concern during oral argument that Shopify’s position—which the Ninth Circuit initially adopted—would leave consumers without redress in any jurisdiction.
Until the Ninth Circuit issues its new opinion, there is no way to know whether online-only businesses like Shopify will be subject to personal jurisdiction in California going forward. The court will want to ensure that those businesses will be subject to personal jurisdiction somewhere without subjecting them to personal jurisdiction everywhere their websites are accessible. But in the meantime, businesses that operate websites that are accessible to California consumers should remain vigilant. After all, California has some of the strictest consumer privacy laws in the United States, and those laws have led to a proliferation of consumer privacy class actions involving defendants’ websites. Briskin gave some of those defendants a viable personal jurisdiction defense, but that defense could soon disappear.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics
On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”
November 11, 2026
Publications
Before You Sign: Key Contract Provisions for Tribes Considering Data Center Developments, ICT
Grace Signorelli-Cassady of Jenner & Block’s Native American Law Practice authored an opinion piece for ICT examining key contract provisions tribes should consider when approached about data center developments.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi Quoted on Fintech Investigation Readiness in Law360
Jenner & Block Partners Jon Skladany and Kayvan Sadeghi were quoted in a Law360 article examining how crypto and fintech companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 5, 2026
Publications
Partner Emily Loeb Discusses What the 2026 Midterms Mean for Congressional Oversight in the Financial Times
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block’s Congressional Investigations Practice, was quoted in the Financial Times in an article examining how companies are preparing for congressional oversight as the new Congress takes shape following the 2026 midterm elections.
November 4, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named 2026 Law360 MVPs
Law360 named Jenner & Block Partners Adam Unikowsky, Lindsay Harrison, and Rebekah Goodheart to its 2026 MVPs list.
November 3, 2026
Publications
Congressional Oversight after Trump v. United States, Lawfare
Special Counsel David Manners-Weber authored an article for Lawfare examining how the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States may weaken Congress’s ability to investigate the executive branch.
November 2, 2026