Writing for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that general jurisdiction exists only when a corporation's affiliations with the forum state are so "continuous and systematic" as to render it "essentially at home" in that state. The paradigm forums for general jurisdiction are a corporation’s place of incorporation and principal place of business. These are the only places where a foreign corporation may be sued on any claim, regardless of whether it relates to the corporation’s forum activities. Justice Ginsburg explained that “continuous and systematic” business activity alone is insufficient for general jurisdiction since this language describes specific jurisdiction and not the standard for general jurisdiction. Instead, Justice Ginsburg stated that a corporation must have affiliations that are so substantial and pervasive in the forum state that it is essentially at home the forum state. She emphasized that since International Shoe v. Washington, specific jurisdiction has become the centerpiece of modern jurisdiction theory, while general jurisdiction has remained confined within traditionally recognized limits and “has not been stretched beyond” them. The Court rejected the agency theory, which would have held that a parent corporation could be subject to general jurisdiction for the contacts of their agent.

Regarding Daimler AG, Justice Ginsburg held that they were not “essentially at home” in California since neither Daimler nor MBUSA were incorporated there or had its principal place of business in the state, and MBUSA’s status as a subsidiary doing substantial business in California was insufficient to attach general jurisdiction to Daimler. Justice Ginsburg rejected the agency theory that imputed MBUSA’s California contacts to Daimler, arguing that it would permit general jurisdiction to be granted wherever a corporation had an in-state subsidiary. She argued that such an outcome was inconsistent with the principles of due process. Justice Ginsburg ultimately concluded that the exercise of general jurisdiction over Daimler would be “exorbitant”, as it would allow California courts to hear claims brought by foreign plaintiffs that have nothing to do with anything that took place in California.