Picture this: you’re shopping for a birthday gift on your phone, navigating a sleek and trusted online storefront. What you don’t see is the invisible web of tracking code—installed without your consent—capturing your every click, compiling it into a richly detailed profile, and potentially hawking that data to unknown parties. This isn’t speculative fear-mongering; it’s at the heart of a revived lawsuit against Shopify, the Canadian e-commerce powerhouse, now forced to defend its practices before a California court.
The Ninth Circuit’s Bold Reversal: Shaping New Rules for the Digital Age
The stakes for consumer data privacy in the modern marketplace have never been higher. On June 10, in a landmark move, the full 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned both a district court and an earlier appellate panel, ruling that Shopify can indeed be sued in California. The plaintiff, California resident Brandon Briskin, alleges the company surreptitiously installed tracking cookies on his iPhone during a purchase—software designed to harvest transaction data, location, and browsing behavior, ultimately forming a profile for re-sale to merchants, all without his knowledge or approval.
This decision marks a seismic shift in judicial thinking. Previous precedent required what’s known as “differential targeting”—proof that a company specifically set its sights on doing business within a particular state. No more, says the court. Shopify’s geolocation technology allowed it to detect Briskin’s California device, and its intentional installation of tracking software there, the court reasoned, was enough. According to the court: “Shopify expressly aimed its conduct at California,” a finding echoed by a bipartisan coalition of 30 attorneys general, who argued forcefully for states’ ability to enforce consumer protection in the online world (Courthouse News Service).
The implications are sweeping. Internet giants running platforms far from American shores can no longer assume they’ll evade local accountability simply by claiming a lack of “intent” to operate in specific states. As Stanford legal scholar Daphne Keller notes, “This is a watershed moment for privacy enforcement—a reminder that digital borders can and should matter when corporations exploit local citizens’ data.”
Beyond Cookies: State Jurisdiction and the Fight for Consumer Rights
Why should you care about a battle over digital jurisdiction? Because it’s a bellwether for every online transaction you make. Expanded state reach over tech companies could catalyze a new era of user protection—one where your zip code determines not just sales tax, but the enforceability of your digital rights.
For Shopify, and by extension every tech company under the sun, California now stands as a proving ground. Advocates say this shift is long overdue, especially as Americans grow increasingly cynical about the wild west of internet data collection. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 81% of Americans feel they have little to no control over the data companies collect about them (Pew Research Center). This frustration has fueled hard-fought gains like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which gives state residents an unprecedented right to demand transparency around what’s being harvested and sold—and to sue if those rights are undercut.
Briskin’s case isn’t happening in a vacuum. It joins a rising tide of litigation and reform aimed at curbing corporate data overreach, from Meta’s struggles with European privacy watchdogs to Google’s multi-state antitrust fights. When Shopify asserts that it never targeted California, the court now calls their bluff: if you deploy tracking mechanisms knowing full well whose residents you’re surveilling, you’re fair game for local courts. This evolving legal climate means companies must weigh consumer privacy obligations alongside profit—and those who fail to evolve risk facing courtrooms, not just market competition.
“This is a watershed moment for privacy enforcement—a reminder that digital borders can and should matter when corporations exploit local citizens’ data.”
The significance wasn’t lost on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which warns that the ruling could create a patchwork nightmare for global service providers. But critics point out that this very complexity is often a deliberate byproduct of lax federal standards and relentless tech lobbying. Without robust national data privacy protections, states like California have little choice but to wield their autonomy—if Washington won’t step in, Sacramento will, much as it did on auto emissions and worker rights.
The Conservative Backlash—and the Progressive Mandate
Of course, conservative judges aren’t taking this expansion of state power lightly. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan’s pointed dissent calls the new approach a “traveling cookie rule,” warning it could “impermissibly manufacture jurisdiction wherever the plaintiff goes.” Her argument hinges on a familiar refrain: that broad personal jurisdiction risks discouraging innovation and burdening global commerce.
Yet historical precedent suggests such technological disruption is often necessary for long-term consumer protection. Recall Ralph Nader’s fight for auto safety in the 1960s—a campaign that upended a powerful industry’s business model, but ultimately spawned seat belts, crash tests, and a dramatic drop in highway deaths. Why should the right to digital privacy be any less sacrosanct than physical safety?
Respect for consumer autonomy and state safeguard is not antithetical to innovation; it can be a driver of better, more transparent business practices. Progressive advocates, echoing voices like Harvard Law’s Shoshana Zuboff, see the Ninth Circuit’s move as essential. The lesson? Accountability is not the enemy of progress. It’s a guarantee that technological advancement serves people first, not just unchecked corporate ambition.
The path forward remains complex. Shopify must now defend itself in a California court, with privacy advocates and state enforcers watching closely. The ultimate verdict may set anchor for a national privacy regime—or send us further down the path of fragmented, state-level protection. Either way, the system is finally catching up with everyday digital realities. When you shop online, your rights shouldn’t depend on invisible code or legal loopholes—they should travel with you, protected every step of the way.
