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 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 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 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
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026