California Becomes Epicenter for Tech Industry Legal Battles

III. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT

A. Jurisdiction

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because they involve questions of federal law arising under COPPA, 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.; 16 C.F.R. §§ 312.4, 312.5, 312.9. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Filing States’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as all claims alleged herein form part of the same case or controversy.

14. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Meta because each Defendant’s principal place of business is in California and each Defendant intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by courts in California consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Meta for the Filing States’ COPPA claims because all Defendants have their principal place of business in Menlo Park, a city in this District. 15 U.S.C. § 6504(e)(2).

16. Meta conducts business in this District through itself or its subsidiaries over which it exercises complete dominion and control. Meta and its subsidiaries operate as a common enterprise while engaging in the unfair, deceptive, and other unlawful acts and practices alleged below. Because Meta and its subsidiaries have operated as a common enterprise, this Court has jurisdiction over each entity individually and collectively.

---