3 ms·

While I'm a big proponent of States' Rights and a strict reading of the 10th Amendment, in the case of Facebook which, by it's nature is not only national but i

While I'm a big proponent of States' Rights and a strict reading of the 10th Amendment, in the case of Facebook which, by it's nature is not only national but international, I have a hard time understanding how a State law can have jurisdiction over Facebook in this case. It seems to me that Federal Law should have original jurisdiction by virtue of the Interstate Commerce clause in this case UNLESS it can be shown that residents of Illinois were targeted or all of the servers and logic for doing facial recognition, analysis, and storage of biometrics were in the State of Illinois. That said, I am not a constitutional lawyers...

ceejayoz 8y ago
They've got jurisdiction over Facebook's relationship with Illinois residents. Same reasons Amazon has to collect sales tax in states they're not necessarily headquartered in. Facebook also has Chicago offices. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ori/ct-facebook-expanding-ryan-ori-20171009-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ori/ct-facebook-expan...
- ghaff 8y ago
  >Same reasons Amazon has to collect sales tax in states they're not necessarily headquartered in. The current law is that they need to have some sort of physical nexus in a state such as an office or a distribution center. Which Amazon probably has in most states at this point and, in any case, they've agreed to collect sales tax in most if not all states. That said, the relevant Supreme Court decision (Quill) [ADDED: that doesn't require collection absent a physical nexus] is being revisited because of another case this term and the betting money seems to be on it being partially or completely overturned.
- frockington 8y ago
  So could they just add a clause in the user agreements that states "You cannot use this if you live in Illinois" and be done with it?
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Facebook has extensive location history available for most users, so just a EULA clause probably wouldn't do the trick. They'd probably have to show a more active attempt to block Illinois residents from the system. It wouldn't be a retroactive solution, either.
bmelton 8y ago
The Interstate Commerce Claus doesn't pertain to jurisdiction, but to authority. On paper, the federal government only has the powers that we have expressly enumerated to it in the Constitution. One of those powers is to regulate commerce among the several states. Originally, this was so that a person in one state would have a venue to sue a company in another state that it did business with and have a fair judiciary, but has since expanded to encompass regulatory authority. It is due to the Interstate Commerce Clause that the government might pass a law, not that it entitles them to sole jurisdiction over a company breaking a state law. Put simply, if there's a law against killing puppies in Georgia, but there's no law against killing puppies at the federal level, that doesn't mean that Facebook can kill puppies in Georgia and get away with it. If there is also a federal law against killing puppies, and Facebook kills puppies in Georgia, then either Georgia or the federal government can file charges, and jurisdiction would be settled then. In this case, because it was an Illinois law, only people who have used Facebook in Illinois may be plaintiffs.

ceejayoz 8y ago

They've got jurisdiction over Facebook's relationship with Illinois residents. Same reasons Amazon has to collect sales tax in states they're not necessarily headquartered in. Facebook also has Chicago offices. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ori/ct-facebook-expanding-ryan-ori-20171009-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ori/ct-facebook-expan...

ghaff 8y ago
>Same reasons Amazon has to collect sales tax in states they're not necessarily headquartered in. The current law is that they need to have some sort of physical nexus in a state such as an office or a distribution center. Which Amazon probably has in most states at this point and, in any case, they've agreed to collect sales tax in most if not all states. That said, the relevant Supreme Court decision (Quill) [ADDED: that doesn't require collection absent a physical nexus] is being revisited because of another case this term and the betting money seems to be on it being partially or completely overturned.
frockington 8y ago
So could they just add a clause in the user agreements that states "You cannot use this if you live in Illinois" and be done with it?
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Facebook has extensive location history available for most users, so just a EULA clause probably wouldn't do the trick. They'd probably have to show a more active attempt to block Illinois residents from the system. It wouldn't be a retroactive solution, either.

bmelton 8y ago

The Interstate Commerce Claus doesn't pertain to jurisdiction, but to authority. On paper, the federal government only has the powers that we have expressly enumerated to it in the Constitution. One of those powers is to regulate commerce among the several states. Originally, this was so that a person in one state would have a venue to sue a company in another state that it did business with and have a fair judiciary, but has since expanded to encompass regulatory authority. It is due to the Interstate Commerce Clause that the government might pass a law, not that it entitles them to sole jurisdiction over a company breaking a state law. Put simply, if there's a law against killing puppies in Georgia, but there's no law against killing puppies at the federal level, that doesn't mean that Facebook can kill puppies in Georgia and get away with it. If there is also a federal law against killing puppies, and Facebook kills puppies in Georgia, then either Georgia or the federal government can file charges, and jurisdiction would be settled then. In this case, because it was an Illinois law, only people who have used Facebook in Illinois may be plaintiffs.