On June 18, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court rulings that resulted in the dismissal of privacy-related claims brought against Papa John’s International, Inc.
The Court confirmed that Papa John’s, as an operator of an interactive website is subject to personal jurisdiction in California:
Because Papa John’s operates an interactive “website with national viewership and scope” that “appeals to, and profits from, an audience in” California, we reject Papa John’s argument that it did not expressly aim its conduct at California. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 754 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc) (quoting Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011)). Because Thomas also alleges that Papa John’s uses its website to intentionally collect information that invades the privacy of users, knowing that any alleged harm will be suffered in California, the allegations satisfy the purposeful direction test. Id. at 751. And because Thomas’s alleged privacy injuries arise out of or relate to Papa John’s website’s contacts with California, and Papa John’s has not shown that the exercise of jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable, Papa John’s is subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Id. at 750–51.
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Claims
Plaintiff alleged that Papa John’s use of “Session Replay Code” on its website violated Section 631(a) of the California Penal Code, which prohibits eavesdropping on communications. The court rejected this claim, clarifying that a party cannot be liable for eavesdropping on its own communications. Since Papa John’s was a participant in the online interactions, and there was no allegation that it aided a third party in eavesdropping, the CIPA claim was properly dismissed.
Intrusion Upon Seclusion Under California Law
The court also addressed the common law claim of intrusion upon seclusion, which requires a “highly offensive” invasion of privacy. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff failed to allege conduct by Papa John’s that met this threshold. As a result, the claim was dismissed.
DACIA THOMAS v. PAPA JOHN’S INTERNATIONAL, INC., No. 24-3557, 2025 WL 1704437 (9th Cir. June 18, 2025).
