facts is necessary.’” Butcher’s Union Loc. No. 498, United Food & Com. Workers

v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted).

In requesting leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, GJG presented

proposed interrogatories and requests for production. GJG sought specific

information from SayGames, including the downloads of, revenue derived from, and

distribution agreements regarding Cannon Shot! in the United States; SayGames’

efforts to advertise, market, license, commercialize, or profit from Cannon Shot! in

the United States; and SayGames’ ability to engage in country-specific distribution

of Cannon Shot!, including the ability to choose distribution in the United States. In

a number of our recent decisions regarding personal jurisdiction and Internet-based

companies, we have made significant reference to the type of information that GJG

seeks in discovery. See AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201, 1210–11

(9th Cir. 2020); Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1230 (9th

2 Cir. 2011); see also Ayla, LLC v. Ayla Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F. 4th 972, 980–83 (9th Cir.

2021).

The question of jurisdiction in the Internet age is not well-settled. Because

the record is insufficiently developed to resolve personal jurisdiction, and because

“further discovery . . . might well demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis

for jurisdiction,” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd.,

328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003), we reverse and remand for jurisdictional

discovery.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3