On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a significant decision, in Freeman v. 3Commas Technologies OÜ, reversing a district court’s dismissal of a class action against an Estonian software company for lack of personal jurisdiction.[1] The ruling provides valuable guidance on when foreign technology companies can be haled into California courts based on their digital activities and online presence.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs brought a putative class action in the Northern District of California against 3Commas Technologies OÜ (“3Commas”), an Estonian private limited company that provides software services for cryptocurrency trading, based on an alleged data breach. The district court dismissed the case, finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Majority’s Analysis: Finding Purposeful Direction Toward California
A majority of the Ninth Circuit panel—Judges Rawlinson and Sanchez—reversed the district court’s decision and held 3Commas had sufficient minimum contacts with California, which supported the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction.
The court applied the well-established three-part test for specific jurisdiction, requiring that: (1) the defendant either purposefully directs activities at the forum or purposefully avails itself of the forum’s laws; (2) the claim arises out of or relates to forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.[2]
Drawing from its recent en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.,[3] the majority emphasized that “a company’s internet activity may subject the company to specific personal jurisdiction in a given forum if the company knows—either actually or constructively about its customer base there and exploits that base for commercial gain.”[4]
Key Contacts Supporting Jurisdiction
The court identified several contacts demonstrating 3Commas purposefully directed its activities at California:
Contracts with California Businesses. 3Commas contracted with Cloudflare, a California-based data server company, to optimize and maintain the availability of its website. Significantly, that contract contained choice-of-law and forum selection clauses designating California.[5]
California-Specific Privacy Disclosures. 3Commas’s website featured a Privacy Policy page that included a dedicated section on California Privacy Rights. The court found it telling that 3Commas did not disclose legal requirements of any other jurisdiction, indicating intentional targeting of California consumers.[6]
Knowledge of User Locations. 3Commas collected users’ financial information, including billing addresses, and geographical data based on IP addresses. The company’s Chief Legal Officer testified that 3Commas “sees user IP addresses, which may allow for inferences regarding the user’s general location.”[7] Additionally, the company charged value-added taxes based on user location, which the company automatically determined by IP addresses or manually entered billing addresses.[8]
Taken together, the court concluded that 3Commas “knows about its California consumer base, conducts its regular business in California, contacts California residents, [and] interacts with them as an intermediary” for cryptocurrency trades.[9]
Fair Play and Substantial Justice
The court also found that exercising jurisdiction over 3Commas comported with fair play and substantial justice, citing several factors:[10]
- The burden on 3Commas of defending in California is limited because it had already agreed to resolve disputes with Cloudflare in California.
- Litigating in California is unlikely to undermine Estonian sovereignty because the claims are based only on U.S. state law.
- California maintains a strong interest in providing redress for its residents who are tortiously injured.
- Because the claims rest on California and other U.S. state law, California would provide the most efficient judicial resolution.
The Dissent: A Narrower View of Purposeful Direction
Judge Miller dissented, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that 3Commas actually knew any of the plaintiffs were California residents. The dissent emphasized that plaintiffs did not allege they provided 3Commas with a billing address, paid California sales tax, or even accessed the website from a California IP address (rather than through a VPN).[11]
Regarding the Cloudflare contract, Judge Miller noted that “a contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts” and that plaintiffs failed to explain how the contract envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts by 3Commas with California.[12]
As for the privacy policy, Judge Miller acknowledged that compliance with California privacy laws is “some evidence” of express aiming at the forum but characterized it as only “weak evidence” that is insufficient by itself.[13] The dissent warned that holding there is personal jurisdiction “would mean that a wide range of defendants who otherwise lack California contacts could be unexpectedly forced to litigate in California.”[14]
Takeaways for Technology Companies
This decision underscores the expanding reach of personal jurisdiction over foreign companies operating online platforms. They should be mindful of the following:
Contracts with U.S.-based service providers can create jurisdictional exposure. Choice of law and forum selection clauses in vendor contracts may be used as evidence of purposeful availment.
Privacy policies may matter for jurisdictional purposes. Including specific references to California privacy rights can be construed as evidence of intentionally targeting California consumers.
Data collection practices create a paper trail. If a company collects IP addresses, billing addresses, or location data that could reveal users are California residents, courts may infer constructive knowledge of a California customer base.
As the digital economy continues to globalize, decisions like Freeman v. 3Commas Technologies will shape the contours of when foreign companies can be brought into U.S. courts.
[1] See generally Freeman v. 3Commas Techs. OÜ, No. 24-6158 (9th Cir. 2026). The following pincites are keyed to the Ninth Circuit’s decision available here.
[2] Id. at 2.
[3] See generally Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025).
[4] Id. at 3.
[5] See id. at 3.
[6] See id. at 3-4.
[7] Id. at 4-5.
[8] See id. at 4.
[9] Id.
[10] See id. at 5.
[11] See id. at 1-2 (Miller, J., dissenting).
[12] Id. at 2.
[13] Id. at 3.
[14] Id. at 3.
[View source.]
