{"id":418,"date":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=418"},"modified":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-07T12:00:00","slug":"shah-hilton-tracking-cookies-forum-selection-clause-transfer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=418","title":{"rendered":"Shah v. Hilton Worldwide \u2014 N.D. Cal. transfers tracking-pixel class action to Eastern District of Virginia under Honors Program forum clause"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Vishal Shah, et al. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-01018<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Forum-selection clause; transfer under Atlantic Marine<\/em>; tracking pixel and third-party cookies; California Invasion of Privacy Act; opt-out consent; Hilton Honors Program; Briskin v. Shopify<\/em><\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

California residents Vishal Shah, Jonathan Gabrielli, and Christine Wiley filed a putative class action against Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. in the Northern District of California. They alleged that the Hilton.com website caused third-party cookies and similar tracking technologies to be placed on California users\u2019 devices even after they opted out of tracking via the website\u2019s pop-up consent banner. The technologies allegedly enabled Hilton and its third-party partners to surreptitiously collect users\u2019 browsing history, visit history, website interactions, search parameters, demographic information, interests, shopping behaviors, device information, geolocation data, and form field data including names, email addresses, and payment information.<\/p>\n

After nearly seven months of litigation, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel finally disclosed that all three named plaintiffs are Hilton Honors Members Rewards Program members. The Honors Program terms specify that \u201cvenue for all suits will be in the Eastern District of Virginia.\u201d Hilton moved to transfer based on that forum-selection clause. Hilton had also previously moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in light of the Ninth Circuit\u2019s recent decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.<\/em>, 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025), which has tightened the personal jurisdiction inquiry for e-commerce defendants. The court took the transfer motion before the personal jurisdiction question, finding sound prudential justification under Leroy v. Great Western United<\/em> and Sinochem International v. Malaysia International Shipping<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Rita F. Lin granted Hilton\u2019s motion to transfer the action to the Eastern District of Virginia.<\/p>\n

The court applied the framework for enforcing forum-selection clauses set out in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court<\/em>: a valid forum-selection clause is given controlling weight in the transfer analysis under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) absent extraordinary circumstances. The Honors Program terms, which the named plaintiffs accepted as members, contain a clear venue clause requiring suit in the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs did not show that the clause was unenforceable for fraud, overreaching, or strong public policy reasons.<\/p>\n

The court rejected plaintiffs\u2019 contentions that the dispute fell outside the Honors Program terms. Their tracking claims were based on activity on Hilton.com, the same site that supports the Honors Program, and their status as Honors members was central to their interactions with Hilton\u2019s digital ecosystem. The presence of unnamed putative class members who might not be Honors members did not defeat transfer; the named plaintiffs are bound, and the case follows them.<\/p>\n

The court reverse-ordered the analysis to take up forum-selection before personal jurisdiction. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.<\/em> has made the personal-jurisdiction inquiry for e-commerce platforms a \u201cclose question\u201d in the Ninth Circuit, and forum non conveniens-style transfer permits the court to bypass a difficult jurisdictional issue when convenience, fairness, and judicial economy strongly favor transfer. Plaintiffs\u2019 delay in disclosing their Honors membership had also already led to a stipulated sanctions award. The court therefore transferred the case under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404(a) without deciding personal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n