Jurisdiction, Personal, Internet, Invasion of Privacy of California Shoppers, Calder Test, 2, 4
Defendants operate a web-based payment processing platform offered to merchants nationwide. Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated California’s privacy laws by installing cookies on their cellphones when they purchased goods from the merchants defendants serviced. The cookies obtained customers’ personal data which defendant then sold to third parties without the customers’ knowledge or consent. Though defendants’ business operation was nationwide and only 8% of customers were from California, defendants could obtain location information from the cellphones and so knew that those customers were located in California. Under the Calder effects test, a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if it (1) commits an intentional act, that is (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) which causes harm that the defendant knows will be suffered in the forum state. Here, defendants’ collection of personal information was intentional, and they knew the harm would be suffered in California since they had the cellphones’ location information. The defendants also expressly aimed their conduct at California since they knew the cellphones were used there and the customers’ privacy would be invaded there. Express aiming does not require “differential targeting” –i.e., that the defendant target the forum more than other states or countries. AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat (9th Cir. 2020) 970 F.3d 1201 is overruled on that point. The holding in this case is consistent with Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277. In that case, the defendant interacted with Nevada residents in Georgia. The mere fact of the plaintiffs’ residence was not enough. But here, defendant reaches into California to act on plaintiffs in this state.