Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fenix International Limited, the UK-incorporated parent company of OnlyFans — the subscription content platform used by millions of Americans — was sued in the Northern District of California by two anonymous California subscribers. The plaintiffs alleged that Fenix violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law (Business & Professions Code § 17600 et seq.) by charging ongoing subscription fees without the disclosures and affirmative consent mechanisms the statute requires. Fenix operates its platform through a US subsidiary, Fenix Internet, LLC, but the UK parent retained effective control and was the named defendant.
Fenix moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. As a UK corporation with no California offices, Fenix argued it had not “expressly aimed” its conduct at California within the meaning of the Ninth Circuit’s purposeful direction test for specific personal jurisdiction over tort-like claims. The Northern District agreed and dismissed. The district court’s ruling predated the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 135 F.4th 739, which clarified the “expressly aimed” standard for online platform defendants.
Plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit panel, reviewing the personal jurisdiction question de novo under Briskin, vacated and remanded. Note: this disposition is unpublished and not citable as precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Court’s Holding
Specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for tort-like claims requires that (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the forum state; (2) the claims arise out of or relate to those forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. The first element — purposeful direction — is analyzed under a three-part test: the defendant must commit an intentional act, expressly aimed at the forum state, causing harm the defendant knows will be felt in the forum. The only disputed element was “express aiming.”
Applying Briskin, the panel held that plaintiffs’ amended complaint made a prima facie showing that Fenix expressly aimed its conduct at California. The key facts: Fenix earns over $400 million annually from California subscribers and has more than 10,000 California-based subscriptions. These are not the “random, isolated, or fortuitous” contacts that fail the purposeful direction test — they are part of Fenix’s regular course of business. The platform “structured its sales activity” to invite and fill California orders, fulfilling subscriptions wherever users access content, including California. Fenix’s arguments that it did not aim any conduct specifically at California — as opposed to the internet at large — were rejected; under Briskin, targeting a large, identifiable California customer base through a subscription business constitutes express aiming.
The panel declined to rule on the second and third prongs of the personal jurisdiction test, remanding those questions to the district court. It also declined to address Fenix’s forum non conveniens arguments, which the district court should consider in the first instance if jurisdiction is found to exist.
Key Takeaways
- Under Briskin, an online subscription platform that earns hundreds of millions of dollars annually from California subscribers and actively fulfills those subscriptions has “expressly aimed” its conduct at California for personal jurisdiction purposes.
- Foreign companies operating online platforms cannot evade California courts by arguing they aim at “the internet” rather than any particular state — large, identifiable California subscriber bases constitute directed activity.
- California’s Automatic Renewal Law remains a significant source of litigation risk for online subscription businesses; personal jurisdiction hurdles are now much lower for platforms with substantial California customer relationships.
- Defendants in similar cases should carefully assess their California subscriber volumes and revenue when evaluating jurisdiction exposure — the Briskin standard clears the bar for platforms operating at any meaningful scale in California.
- This is an unpublished memorandum and not binding precedent, but it is an early, persuasive application of Briskin to a high-profile consumer platform defendant.
Why It Matters
The Briskin en banc decision fundamentally shifted the landscape for personal jurisdiction over online platforms in California. Before Briskin, many courts held that running a website accessible to Californians was not enough to establish specific personal jurisdiction — the platform had to affirmatively target California users. After Briskin, substantial California-based revenue and subscription volume can satisfy the “express aiming” element, even without a physical California presence. This case is an early demonstration of Briskin‘s reach applied to one of the internet’s most prominent subscription content platforms.
For California practitioners representing consumers or businesses in online subscription disputes, the ruling signals that even UK-based platforms with large California customer bases cannot simply dismiss cases for lack of personal jurisdiction. For subscription businesses, the combination of California’s Automatic Renewal Law disclosure requirements and Briskin‘s expanded jurisdictional reach creates a potent compliance and litigation risk. Any platform earning significant California revenue should ensure its auto-renewal disclosures, consent flows, and cancellation mechanisms comply fully with Business & Professions Code §§ 17600–17606.