4 ms·
The fact that an USA company breaks the law in France doesn't mean that French companies do not break your local laws. Jurisdiction of commerce is where the bu
by yohannparis 7y ago
The fact that an USA company breaks the law in France doesn't mean that French companies do not break your local laws.
Jurisdiction of commerce is where the buyer is, not the HQ location. Therefore your example is useless.
- jldugger 7y agoUnless your point is that the pricing is actually varied in France, this antitrust decision reads like selective enforcement of market regulations -- protectionism.
- mijamo 7y agoThe price is actually varied in France and this decision has nothing to do with protectionism. Similar decision happened previously against French companies (ex: Michelin).
- yohannparis 7y agoI disagree. A company cannot regulate prices in France, USA or French. A French company may regulate prices in the USA if the law allows it. The provenance of a company has nothing to do about the market regulation of the buyer country of residence. This is not a French ideology, this is a French law that is only applicable in France territory.
- jldugger 7y ago> The provenance of a company has nothing to do about the market regulation of the buyer country of residence. I agree, it shouldn't. The question at hand is whether it does , despite this.
- yohannparis 7y agoThen you argue about sovereignty. Any country will never let the law of a foreign country apply to commerce done on its territory. Saying otherwise is heresy.
- jldugger 7y agoTo revisit your earlier statement: > The provenance of a company has nothing to do about the market regulation of the buyer country of residence. If a law is selectively enforced against foreign entities, provenance suddenly does matter. That is my only point. It undermines the spirit of free trade and invites retaliation, leaving everyone worse off.