N.D. Cal. Holds That App Availability and Subsidiary Contacts Do Not Satisfy 'Express Aiming' Standard for Personal Jurisdiction

The lawsuit, filed by users of LINE Messenger and the B612 photo app, alleges that the defendants unlawfully collected biometric data and private messages through their apps. The plaintiffs advanced nine causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The court’s ruling turns on whether the foreign defendants satisfied the Ninth Circuit’s Briskin standard for specific personal jurisdiction in tort cases. Under that test, a defendant must commit an intentional act expressly aimed at the forum state that causes harm the defendant knows will be suffered there.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not show that LINE Corp. expressly aimed its conduct at California. The judge rejected arguments based on the app’s availability in U.S. app stores, sales of creator stickers, and the use of servers in New Jersey, noting that these contacts were not sufficient to establish purposeful direction.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ alter ego and agency theories, holding that LINE Corp.’s subsidiaries operated independently and that the parent company did not exercise the substantial control required to attribute subsidiary contacts to it.

Regarding Z Holdings, the court held there was no basis for jurisdiction because the parent company was not involved in LINE Corp.’s day-to-day operations and did not direct conduct related to the alleged data collection.

The court similarly denied jurisdiction over NAVER and its subsidiary NAVER Cloud, holding that the plaintiffs relied on the actions of subsidiaries rather than showing that NAVER itself expressly aimed its conduct at California. The court noted that compliance with California’s privacy policies and the presence of NAVER in global reports did not demonstrate intentional targeting.

The order grants the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction while denying their Rule 12(b)(6) motions, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed against other defendants not subject to these jurisdictional challenges.