[Enforcement library](/enforcement)

# Briskin v. Shopify

The en banc court held that California could exercise specific jurisdiction over the alleged collection of a known California user’s data. The decision addresses jurisdiction, rather than deciding the underlying privacy claims.

US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (en banc) · Personal jurisdiction in privacy litigation

- Case record
- What this record establishes
- Checks for your own systems
- Sources and limits

## Case record

| Fact | Record |
| --- | --- |
| Authority or court | US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (en banc) |
| Law or issue | Personal jurisdiction in privacy litigation |
| Case number | 22-15815 |
| Procedural record | Jurisdictional dismissal reversed and remanded |
| Opinion or order | 21 April 2025 |
| Source reviewed | 16 October 2026 |

[Court opinion or order](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/21/22-15815.pdf)

## What this record establishes

This page describes the cited opinion or order. A dismissal, pleading decision, standing ruling or jurisdiction decision has a different scope from a merits judgment. Later proceedings and appeals may change the position. Unpublished and nonprecedential decisions are identified in the status where applicable.

## Checks for your own systems

Inth’s technical interpretation: use this case to choose what evidence to collect in your own implementation. These checks are not instructions issued by the court or regulator.

- Record the IP addresses, device attributes and identifiers actually transmitted to each destination.
- Distinguish routing metadata, fingerprinting inputs and message contents in the evidence.
- Repeat captures before a choice, after refusal and after navigation.

> **Limits of technical evidence**
> A browser capture can show a transfer. It cannot establish every server operation, the terms of a contract or whether a law applies. Compare observed behaviour with the relevant disclosures and legal assessment.

## Sources and limits

[Court opinion or order](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/21/22-15815.pdf)

Source review: 16 October 2026. This record covers the cited source and procedural stage. It does not audit the organisation’s present implementation or establish every later legal development.

[Browse the enforcement library](/enforcement)