Addressing cookie banner malfunction claims, Judge Beth McGowen in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, granted defendant’s motion to quash and held that the motion to compel arbitration was moot.
Background. Shah alleged that Constellation Brands’ websites continued using tracking technologies and cookies after users selected “reject all” cookie settings. The complaint asserted claims of invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, CIPA, fraud, unjust-enrichment, and trespass to chattels claims. Constellation Brands moved to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis. The court held that Shah hadn’t established purposeful availment or purposeful direction toward California to meet the specific jurisdiction standard. Evidence that California was a significant market for Modelo products, together with nationwide website accessibility, was insufficient.
Plaintiffs reliance on Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 135 F.4th 739, 746 (Briskin) is distinguishable. In Briskin, the plaintiff asserted a privacy-related tort arising from the defendant Shopify’s activity in connection with a purchase he made in California from a California retailer. (Ibid.) Shopify facilitated his credit card transaction for the merchant and thereafter “took the opportunity to install ‘cookies’ on the device he used to buy the athletic wear and … Shopify did so without his knowledge or consent.” (Ibid.) The cookies then tracked the plaintiff’s location and collected his online shopping data. The Ninth Circuit determined that jurisdiction was proper because Shopify deliberately targeted the plaintiff in California. (Ibid.) In Briskin, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant compiled that data whereas here, Plaintiff alleges that the third parties tracked and collected data on users’ behaviors and communications. Moreover, there are no allegations or evidence that Defendant collected location data and used that location data to market to California retailers. Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on Briskin is unavailing.
Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 135 F.4th 739, 746 (Briskin) is distinguishable. In Briskin, the plaintiff asserted a privacy-related tort arising from the defendant Shopify’s activity in connection with a purchase he made in California from a California retailer. (Ibid.) Shopify facilitated his credit card transaction for the merchant and thereafter “took the opportunity to install ‘cookies’ on the device he used to buy the athletic wear and … Shopify did so without his knowledge or consent.” (Ibid.) The cookies then tracked the plaintiff’s location and collected his online shopping data. The Ninth Circuit determined that jurisdiction was proper because Shopify deliberately targeted the plaintiff in California. (Ibid.) In Briskin, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant compiled that data whereas here, Plaintiff alleges that the third parties tracked and collected data on users’ behaviors and communications. Moreover, there are no allegations or evidence that Defendant collected location data and used that location data to market to California retailers. Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on Briskin is unavailing.
Shah also failed to offer competent evidence tying the alleged tracking conduct to California-specific activity, especially since Shah did not nor could he have purchased anything on the Modelo Website.
Significance. The decision highlights the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs seeking to establish specific jurisdiction over out-of-state website operators. General commercial activity in California and a nationally accessible website won’t necessarily suffice.
Shah v. Constellation Brands, Inc., No. 25CV468462, 2026 WL 1457444 (Cal.Super. May 15, 2026).
