Daghaly v. Bloomingdales.com

Bloomingdale’s, an online retailer, operates an interactive website where it markets and sells consumer products. When members of the public visit the website, Bloomingdale’s surreptitiously creates video recordings of their interactions with the website, disseminates the recordings to third parties, and profits from the consumer insights it gleans from the recordings. Amanda Daghaly, a California resident whose online activities were recorded when she accessed Bloomingdale’s website from California, sued Bloomingdale’s in federal court in California, alleging that Bloomingdale’s had violated California’s privacy laws. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that, although the court recognized that Bloomingdale’s purposefully directed its activities into California by using its website to market and sell products there, Daghaly’s online privacy claims did not arise out of or relate to these commercial contacts with California.

Public Citizen represents Daghaly on appeal, co-counseling with attorneys at Leeds Brown Law and The Sultzer Law Group. The brief explains that the California court has jurisdiction over Bloomingdale’s because Daghaly’s challenges arise out of and relate to the sales that Bloomingdale’s conducts through its website. The online sales activities that Bloomingdale’s directs into California are the mechanism through which it caused Daghaly’s injury and the commercial incentive to engage in its injurious conduct.