In Borders Online v. State Bd. of Equalization (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1179, Online argued the trial court erred by not applying "California's 'four-factor test' to review the agency issue." (Borders, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1190.) The Borders court disagreed, recognizing that although "it is true courts consider these factors when considering agency issues in various contexts, there is no bright-line 'four-factor test' in determining agency." (Borders, at p. 1190.) Indeed, the court explained that "the cases Online relies on to advocate the existence of the so-called 'four-factor test' were decided in other contexts, analyzed far different factual situations, and did not necessarily apply each of the four 'factors' cited by Online." (Ibid.) The Borders court further noted the Scholastic court did not apply the four-factor test proposed by Online. (Id. at p. 1191.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that an out-of-state online bookseller (Online) had sufficient nexus with California based on an agency relationship with its sister corporation (Borders), which operated brick-and-mortar stores in California. (Borders, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1190.) Although Online and Borders were separately established legal entities owned by Borders Group, Inc., "two people who served on Online's board of directors also served on Borders's three-person board of directors ... ," and "all but two of the nine people who served as officers of Online during the disputed period ... also served as officers of Borders at some point during the disputed period." (Id. at p. 1185.) The sister entities shared a similar logo and some financial and marketing data, but did not intermingle their corporate assets. (Ibid.) Despite this corporate separateness, the trial court found--and the Court of Appeal agreed--that each sister entity's policy allowing for customers to return merchandise purchased from Online at Borders stores located in California established Borders as Online's agent. (Id. at p. 1190.)