n Monday, the court received a US appeal, in which a data privacy class action was revived against Shopify. This decision has the ability to simplify
the jurisdiction of American courts over internet-based platforms.
Even more so, in a 10-1 decision, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals held in San Francisco said that the Canadian e-commerce company can also be sued in California for collecting personal identifying data from people who are making purchases on websites of retailers from the specific state.
A California resident, Brandon Briskin, said that Shopify has installed tracking software, which is known as cookies, on his device without his consent when he purchased athletic wear from the retailer I Am Becoming, and even used his data in order to create a profile that had the potential of selling to other merchants.
Shopify also said that it should not be held responsible in California due to its operators nationwide and did not aim its conduct toward a singular state. The company based in Ottawa has reported that Briskin could also be suing in Delaware, New York, or Canada.
It is also worth mentioning that a lower court judge and a three-judge 9th Circuit panel had also agreed that the case should be dismissed, however, the full appeals court reported that Shopify “expressly aimed” its conduct towards California.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Judge Kim McLance Wardlaw wrote for the majority, saying “Shopify deliberately reached out ... by knowingly installing tracking software onto unsuspecting Californians' phones so that it could later sell the data it obtained, in a manner that was neither random, isolated, or fortuitous,".
Even more so, a spokesperson for Shopify also commented on the matter, saying that the decision “attacks the basics of how the internet works," and influences entrepreneurs who have online businesses into distant courtrooms regardless of their place of work.
A lawyer for Briskin also said that the court bolstered accountability when it comes to internet-based companies, which are rejecting the argument that a “company is jurisdictionally 'nowhere' because it does business 'everywhere’.”
More so, a bipartisan group of 30 states and Washington, D.C. took the same part as Briskin did. Reporting further that they need to enforce theri one consumer protection law against companies that avail themselves of local marketplaces through the internet.
Judge Consuelo Callahan dissented and brought criticism to the majority, saying “traveling cookie rule" because it "impermissibly manufactures jurisdiction wherever the plaintiff goes.", reported Reuters.
.webp)
.webp)
