I agree that the situation you describe seems like an overreach, but the US likes to throw its weight around. For that matter so does the EU (ex GDPR), China, a

I agree that the situation you describe seems like an overreach, but the US likes to throw its weight around. For that matter so does the EU (ex GDPR), China, and really any other country. My impression is that most countries will happily ignore jurisdiction, pass laws that they claim apply to the entire world, and then do their best to find creative means of enforcing them on outsiders. See the ongoing Toshiba nonsense for a flagrant example of such. (https://reut.rs/2RDFjMz https://reut.rs/2RDFjMz) (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...) That being said, it seems Telegram's situation is far more complicated; I asked about the same thing when it came up previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22394276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22394276). They are likely operating out of a jurisdiction which is explicitly subject via treaty to at least some US laws. They were also initially selling to US investors, and I suspect that many of their hypothetical overseas investors would have ultimately had to comply with US securities laws for their own reasons at the end of the day. My take on the situation at this point is that violating laws in a jurisdiction with an extradition agreement to the country in question is generally a bad idea. Moreover, ignoring US securities regulations makes for a poor business plan since it means neither you nor your customers can realistically be located in such a jurisdiction (ie most of them).