On August 1, 2025, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, granted a motion to quash service of summons in a privacy lawsuit against an out of state defendant. The court found it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, rendering the company’s demurrer to the complaint moot. The case centered on alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) related to tracking software on the defendant’s website.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant, through its partnership with TikTok, installed tracking software on its website that collected user data—including geolocation—without consent, in violation of California Penal Code section 638.51. The defendant, incorporated and headquartered in Vermont, moved to quash service on the grounds that California courts lacked jurisdiction.
General Jurisdiction
The court confirmed that general jurisdiction was not present, as defendant is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of business in California. plaintiff did not dispute this point.
Specific Jurisdiction
The court analyzed whether specific jurisdiction could be established under the “purposeful availment” standard and the Calder “effects test,” which requires intentional conduct expressly aimed at the forum state. The plaintiff argued that embedding TikTok’s tracking software, which transmits data to a California-based company, constituted such conduct.
The court found plaintiff’s evidence insufficient. Defendant’s website was passive and not specifically targeted at California residents. The mere accessibility of the website in California and the use of third-party software (TikTok) did not amount to purposeful availment. The court distinguished this case from recent precedent where defendants had more direct, intentional engagement with California consumers.
The court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations and evidence provided are insufficient to satisfy the purposeful availment prong. Plaintiff fails to show that Defendant’s website is more than a passive website which merely posts information, or that it is not minimally interactive without regard to geography.
The only connection to California was TikTok’s location, which was not enough to establish jurisdiction over defendant. There was no evidence that the website treated California users differently or engaged in repeated commercial activities with them.
Hughes v. Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No. 25STCV01128, 2025 WL 2306840 (Cal.Super. Aug. 01, 2025).
