A U.S. appeals court revived a proposed data‑privacy class action against Shopify, ruling in a 10‑1 decision that the Canadian e‑commerce platform can be sued in California for installing tracking cookies on consumers’ devices without consent. The 9th Circuit held that Shopify “expressly aimed” its conduct at Californians, allowing Brandon Briskin’s suit to proceed and challenging lower‑court rulings that had dismissed the case.
The decision marks a significant expansion of jurisdiction over internet‑based services, potentially lowering the bar for U.S. courts to hear claims against global platforms. Shopify argued that its operations are nationwide and that any suit should be filed in Delaware, New York or Canada, but the full appeals court said the company deliberately reached into California by deploying tracking software to create and monetize consumer profiles.
Market Overview:- 9th Circuit revives Briskin v. Shopify, spotlighting data‑privacy enforcement.
- Decision could ease jurisdictional hurdles for U.S. consumer‑protection suits.
- Bipartisan support from 30 states underscores regulatory interest in digital platforms.
- Majority opinion rejects “random or isolated” cookie installations as grounds for jurisdiction.
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns of overreach that could ensnare backend service providers.
- Dissent labels the ruling a “traveling cookie rule” that fabricates jurisdictional reach.
- Shopify may seek Supreme Court review to curb expansive jurisdiction standards.
- Digital platforms will reassess data‑collection practices to mitigate litigation risk.
- States may pursue similar actions, leveraging local courts to enforce consumer laws.
- The 9th Circuit’s decision increases accountability for tech platforms, empowering U.S. consumers to pursue legal redress locally when their data-privacy rights are violated by global operators like Shopify.
- Bipartisan support from 30 states signals strong political and regulatory momentum for enhanced consumer protections, which may lead to clearer, more robust privacy standards nationwide.
- The ruling could motivate digital platforms to proactively strengthen data-collection and consent protocols, reducing future litigation risk and building consumer trust.
- Jurisdictional clarity might deter global platforms from skirting U.S. laws, leveling the playing field for domestic competitors and increasing compliance across the digital economy.
- Consumer confidence is likely to benefit as platforms adapt to higher privacy expectations, potentially increasing engagement and brand loyalty in the long run.
- Expanding U.S. jurisdiction may expose global tech firms to a patchwork of local lawsuits, increasing legal complexity and deterrents to innovation, especially for emerging or smaller providers.
- The decision could trigger a surge in class-action litigation, increasing compliance costs and forcing companies to divert resources from product development to regulatory defense.
- Industry groups argue this “traveling cookie rule” could ensnare backend service providers, not just consumer-facing platforms, resulting in broader industry disruption.
- Shopify’s potential Supreme Court appeal introduces further uncertainty for tech companies, which must now reassess legal exposure in every state market.
- Increased litigation risk and regulatory fragmentation may ultimately raise costs for consumers and slow the pace of digital commerce expansion in the U.S.
The ruling drew a rare coalition of 30 states and Washington, D.C., urging the court to uphold their ability to apply local consumer‑protection statutes to global tech firms. Industry groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, counter that broad jurisdictional rules could stifle innovation and burden service providers worldwide.
Looking forward, the outcome of Shopify’s potential appeal could redefine the legal landscape for online platforms, balancing consumer privacy rights against the need for consistent, nationwide regulatory standards. As other circuits weigh similar challenges, technology companies will closely monitor the high‑court’s willingness to rein in expansive jurisdictional theories.
