UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and No. 22-55315 all others similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:21-cv- Plaintiff-Appellant, 02428-VAP-SK

v. OPINION WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S.; WGCZ HOLDING, A.S.; WGCZ LIMITED, S.R.O.; NKL ASSOCIATES, S.R.O.; TRAFFIC F, S.R.O.; GTFLIX TV, S.R.O.; FTCP, S.R.O.; VS MEDIA, INC.; HC MEDIA, S.R.O.; HC MULTIMEDIA LLC; FBP MEDIA, S.R.O.; STEPHANE MICHAEL PACAUD; DEBORAH MALORIE PACAUD; SERVERSTACK, INC.; DIGITAL OCEAN HOLDINGS, INC.; DIGITAL OCEAN, LLC, FKA Digital Ocean, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding 2 DOE V. WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S.

Argued and Submitted December 9, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed January 2, 2024

Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr., Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Collins; Concurrence by Judge Lee

SUMMARY *

Personal Jurisdiction

The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal, for lack of personal jurisdiction, of claims asserted against 11 foreign-based defendants in a putative class action alleging that defendants violated federal and California law by participating in, or benefitting from, the distribution of videos on the internet that depicted the sexual abuse of Plaintiff and of other victims of childhood-sex- trafficking. At least four of the videos depicting Plaintiff were uploaded to two pornography websites, which use English as their default language but are respectively operated by two related Czech entities, Defendants WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s. and NKL Associates, s.r.o. Both entities have their principal place of business in the Czech Republic, and * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. DOE V. WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S. 3

neither has offices, conducts business operations, or is registered to do business in the United States. Plaintiff filed this putative class action against WGCZ, NKL, and nine additional foreign defendants (collectively, the “Foreign Defendants”), and five U.S.-based defendants. Plaintiff contended that personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants is authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Whether personal jurisdiction exists under Rule 4(k)(2) turns on whether the requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied. Because Plaintiff did not contend that the Foreign Defendants’ contacts with the United States were sufficient to give rise to general jurisdiction, the sole potential basis for personal jurisdiction was specific jurisdiction over the particular matters at issue in this lawsuit. The panel held that the district court erred in holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction against WGCZ and NKL under the requisite three-part due process test because (1) Plaintiff established a prima facie case that WGCZ and NKL purposefully directed their websites at the United States, (2) her claims seek redress for harms that arise from WGCZ’s and NKL’s forum-related activities in targeting their websites towards the U.S. market, and (3) WGCZ and NKL failed to make a compelling showing that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of the action against WGCZ and NKL for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the district court dismissed the remaining nine Foreign Defendants solely on the ground that there was no personal jurisdiction ov