alt Hacker News(I deleted my original reply, which was maybe conflating several different arguments. I'll try to restate my point more succinctly. IANAL, so it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding the legal issues at play.)
The linked opinion's discussion of jurisdiction seems to be about whether the case can be heard in any court, not if there's an alternate venue that would be more proper. FWIW, the retailer's web site[0] does not seem to contain a terms of service or anything with a choice-of-law provision. If the argument is that no court has jurisdiction in which the plaintiff can seek redress, that seems equivalent to saying that the law doesn't apply to the defendants.
Shopify already exercises a huge amount of discretion as to which businesses it's willing to provide services for, and how much it charges them. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the company would either a) be willing to answer to California courts, or b) stop selling its services to California retailers.
There is definitely one state, which is New York (where its U.S. HQ is). Another is possibly Delaware in which its U.S. entity is incorporated.
That’s why the author said that when the court stated that it would be absurd if there were no state that had jurisdiction, the court was being misleading, because there is always at least one state in which a U.S. entity is subject to jurisdiction.