Ninth Circuit Limits Jurisdiction Over Web-Based Platforms
In a recent decision, Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2023 WL 8225346 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a Canadian-based company, Shopify, which provides a web-based payment processing platform to merchants nationwide, could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not expressly direct its actions to the state.
There, the plaintiff alleged that Shopify violated California privacy and consumer protection laws by collecting and processing his confidential personal information when he made a purchase on a California-based retailer’s website. The district court in the Northern District of California dismissed the action, concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Shopify.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Shopify’s actions were not purposefully directed at California. The court noted that, while Shopify indisputably had contacts with California—including contracts with California merchants, an office in Los Angeles that promoted merchant relations, and a California fulfillment center, among other things—none of the contacts established that Shopify had a “forum-specific focus” or was specifically “appeal[ing] to . . . an audience in a particular state,” or “actively target[ing] the forum state.” Instead, the court concluded, “[the plaintiff’s] injuries are based on Shopify’s extraction and processing of his personal information. His claims have nothing to do with Shopify’s brick-and-mortar operations in the state. Nor do they relate to Shopify’s contracts with merchants in California. [The plaintiff] would have suffered the same injury regardless of whether he purchased items from a California merchant or was physically present in California when he did so.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s intimation that “Shopify’s broader business actions in California set the wheels in motion for Shopify to eventually inflict privacy-related harm on him in California,” concluding that “such a butterfly effect theory of specific jurisdiction would be far too expansive to satisfy due process.”
At bottom, the Ninth Circuit recognized that subjecting web-based platforms to specific jurisdiction in any forum from which they are accessible (particularly if that accessibility is based on the actions of third parties such as merchants) would lead to “the eventual demise of all restrictions on personal jurisdiction.” This decision is particularly relevant for foreign defendants that provide back-end services to third parties operating in the United States.
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。
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Shopify’s actions were not purposefully directed at California. The court noted that, while Shopify indisputably had contacts with California—including contracts with California merchants, an office in Los Angeles that promoted merchant relations, and a California fulfillment center, among other things—none of the contacts established that Shopify had a “forum-specific focus” or was specifically “appeal[ing] to . . . an audience in a particular state,” or “actively target[ing] the forum state.” Instead, the court concluded, “[the plaintiff’s] injuries are based on Shopify’s extraction and processing of his personal information. His claims have nothing to do with Shopify’s brick-and-mortar operations in the state. Nor do they relate to Shopify’s contracts with merchants in California. [The plaintiff] would have suffered the same injury regardless of whether he purchased items from a California merchant or was physically present in California when he did so.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s intimation that “Shopify’s broader business actions in California set the wheels in motion for Shopify to eventually inflict privacy-related harm on him in California,” concluding that “such a butterfly effect theory of specific jurisdiction would be far too expansive to satisfy due process.”
At bottom, the Ninth Circuit recognized that subjecting web-based platforms to specific jurisdiction in any forum from which they are accessible (particularly if that accessibility is based on the actions of third parties such as merchants) would lead to “the eventual demise of all restrictions on personal jurisdiction.” This decision is particularly relevant for foreign defendants that provide back-end services to third parties operating in the United States.
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 Attorneys
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 a recent decision, Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2023 WL 8225346 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a Canadian-based company, Shopify, which provides a web-based payment processing platform to merchants nationwide, could not be subjected to personal jurisdiction in California because it did not expressly direct its actions to the state.
There, the plaintiff alleged that Shopify violated California privacy and consumer protection laws by collecting and processing his confidential personal information when he made a purchase on a California-based retailer’s website. The district court in the Northern District of California dismissed the action, concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Shopify.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Shopify’s actions were not purposefully directed at California. The court noted that, while Shopify indisputably had contacts with California—including contracts with California merchants, an office in Los Angeles that promoted merchant relations, and a California fulfillment center, among other things—none of the contacts established that Shopify had a “forum-specific focus” or was specifically “appeal[ing] to . . . an audience in a particular state,” or “actively target[ing] the forum state.” Instead, the court concluded, “[the plaintiff’s] injuries are based on Shopify’s extraction and processing of his personal information. His claims have nothing to do with Shopify’s brick-and-mortar operations in the state. Nor do they relate to Shopify’s contracts with merchants in California. [The plaintiff] would have suffered the same injury regardless of whether he purchased items from a California merchant or was physically present in California when he did so.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s intimation that “Shopify’s broader business actions in California set the wheels in motion for Shopify to eventually inflict privacy-related harm on him in California,” concluding that “such a butterfly effect theory of specific jurisdiction would be far too expansive to satisfy due process.”
At bottom, the Ninth Circuit recognized that subjecting web-based platforms to specific jurisdiction in any forum from which they are accessible (particularly if that accessibility is based on the actions of third parties such as merchants) would lead to “the eventual demise of all restrictions on personal jurisdiction.” This decision is particularly relevant for foreign defendants that provide back-end services to third parties operating in the United States.
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。
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Shopify’s actions were not purposefully directed at California. The court noted that, while Shopify indisputably had contacts with California—including contracts with California merchants, an office in Los Angeles that promoted merchant relations, and a California fulfillment center, among other things—none of the contacts established that Shopify had a “forum-specific focus” or was specifically “appeal[ing] to . . . an audience in a particular state,” or “actively target[ing] the forum state.” Instead, the court concluded, “[the plaintiff’s] injuries are based on Shopify’s extraction and processing of his personal information. His claims have nothing to do with Shopify’s brick-and-mortar operations in the state. Nor do they relate to Shopify’s contracts with merchants in California. [The plaintiff] would have suffered the same injury regardless of whether he purchased items from a California merchant or was physically present in California when he did so.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s intimation that “Shopify’s broader business actions in California set the wheels in motion for Shopify to eventually inflict privacy-related harm on him in California,” concluding that “such a butterfly effect theory of specific jurisdiction would be far too expansive to satisfy due process.”
At bottom, the Ninth Circuit recognized that subjecting web-based platforms to specific jurisdiction in any forum from which they are accessible (particularly if that accessibility is based on the actions of third parties such as merchants) would lead to “the eventual demise of all restrictions on personal jurisdiction.” This decision is particularly relevant for foreign defendants that provide back-end services to third parties operating in the United States.
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 Attorneys
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
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026