UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRANDON BRISKIN, on behalf of No. 22-15815 himself and those similarly situated, D.C. No. 4:21-cv- Plaintiff-Appellant, 06269-PJH

v. OPINION SHOPIFY, INC.; SHOPIFY (USA), INC.; SHOPIFY PAYMENTS (USA), INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted En Banc September 26, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed April 21, 2025 Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen, Michelle T. Friedland, Mark J. Bennett, Daniel P. Collins, Patrick J. Bumatay, Holly A. Thomas and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. 2 BRISKIN V. SHOPIFY, INC.

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw; Concurrence by Judge Collins; Concurrence by Judge Bumatay; Dissent by Judge Callahan

SUMMARY *

Personal Jurisdiction

The en banc court reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and applying traditional specific personal jurisdiction precedent to e-commerce, concluded that jurisdiction was proper because Defendants’ allegedly tortious actions deliberately targeted Plaintiff Brandon Briskin in California. Briskin, a California resident, used his iPhone’s Safari browser to purchase clothing from the brand IABMFG at https://www.iambecoming.com. When he pressed the “Pay now” button, he had no way of knowing that by doing so he submitted his personal data not to IABMFG, but to Shopify, an e-commerce platform that facilitates online sales for merchants with whom it contracts. Briskin filed his putative class action alleging privacy-related torts in the Northern District of California against Shopify, Inc., a Canadian corporation, and two of its wholly-owned United States subsidiaries, Shopify (USA), Inc., and Shopify Payments (USA), Inc., Delaware corporations.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. BRISKIN V. SHOPIFY, INC. 3

The en banc court concluded that Shopify is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California because Shopify’s allegedly tortious actions deliberately targeted Briskin in California where: (1) Shopify conceded that its geolocation technology allowed it to know that Briskin’s device was located in California when it installed cookies on Briskin’s device; and (2) Briskin’s complaint alleged that Shopify used the data gathered by its cookies to compile consumer profiles and then sold them without the consumer’s knowledge or consent. The en banc court overruled precedent requiring defendants’ conduct to evince “differential targeting” of a specific forum to establish specific personal jurisdiction in that forum. The en banc court also held that the district court erred in dismissing Briskin’s complaint on vagueness grounds. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. The en banc court held that complaint satisfied Rule 8(a)(2) because it provided sufficient information to give the Shopify entities fair notice of the claims against them. Concurring in the judgment, Judge Collins agreed that the district court erred in dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction over the Shopify defendants, but his reasoning differed in some respects from that of the majority. To establish personal jurisdiction over Defendants in California, Briskin m