3 ms·

I think you may have either misunderstood me, or maybe have gotten the logic backwards. I'm not saying that US companies should not enforce US law. I think the

I think you may have either misunderstood me, or maybe have gotten the logic backwards. I'm not saying that US companies should not enforce US law. I think they should. That is: strictly within the US market. When they operate outside the US market, they have to (also) adhere to whatever law exists for that market. If that creates a conflict, the company has a choice to either open up show elsewhere, outside of US jurisdiction (if that's the only way to comply with local market rules), or stay in the US and leave the foreign market alone. Either way, being a US company should never be a valid excuse to violate laws (and/or legal protections) somewhere abroad. It ultimately is up to a company to choose what they do and where they do it. To me, the current status quo appears to be that many US companies have been (illegally) enforcing US laws outside of US jurisdiction. Aside from that, and maybe even on a far worse level, they have been essentially been making up de facto "private laws", in their TOP/EULA "contracts". Last time I checked, law should be left to governments. Preferable through democratic due process. Certainly not to commercial companies, who are either privately owned, or publicly by a select few rather undemocratic entities.

epc 6y ago
It’s been my personal experience that the US government does not distinguish between a US company offering products and services in the US and a US company offering those products and services outside the US. Even foreign subsidiaries are held accountable to US laws and regulations if the US parent has sufficient control of the company. Bigger companies get a little bit more leeway to negotiate with the US Federal government on this but if the US decides that something is illegal or prohibited, the Justice Department doesn't really care what country the prohibited activity occurred in, it'll walk the executive chain to pick people to prosecute. The only way a company could complete avoid this scenario is if it licensed its product or service to an independent entity outside the US. And even then the DOJ would likely attempt to force the termination of the license agreement if it results in a product or service being offered in a prohibited jurisdiction. None of this is new, or due to Trump, or even partisan.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  You are correct, on each and every count. However, none of that is related to what I tried to highlight. Sure, the US is (rightfully so) subjecting every company within its jurisdiction to US law, no matter on which market they operate. Sometimes they go even further and say non-US companies can be held liable, when they somehow interact with the USA or its citizens. That can sometimes become a bit dicey with jurisdictions, but even that is not the point here. The point is that a US-based company is operating on a market outside the US and (most likely) is operating in a way that is within the law of that market. To put bluntly: I don't give a #### about how the US treats companies on their territory, regardless where those operate. I care about US-based companies abiding to law wherever they do business. If they can not do that, they should cease to operate there. Whether it's the US government or something else that is to blame for the situation is irrelevant.
epc 6y ago
My shorter version: Precedent in the US is that the US views its jurisdiction over US citizens and corporations as global. If I as a US citizen step over the border to your country and bribe an official of your country in order to gain a commercial contract, I can (and probably, though not definitely) will be prosecuted for breaking US law, regardless of whether or not bribery is perfectly legal in your country. Same for corporations: if the act is prohibited in the US, the US Government generally does not distinguish between whether the act occurred in the US or not. This is not new. The Internet exacerbates the potential for conflicts, but it’s not a new problem with the rise of the Internet.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  The US government should do whatever it sees fit for its subjects. That's not the issue. The issue is that a US company should also be held accountable for whatever they violates abroad. Not by the US government, of course. But by the authorities of whatever foreign market they operate on (the only authority with jurisdiction anyways). While the tide is gradually changing, so far a substantial part of the problem is that the US government has quite a few nasty ways to shield US companies from being seriously held accountable abroad. Still, the longer that reality exists, the more inevitable it will become that at some point US companies will simply be barred altogether from (some) foreign markets. You can only abuse a dominant position for so long, before the receiving end will no longer put up with it. That is, of course, when (or as soon as) they have the luxury of choice in the matter.

epc 6y ago

It’s been my personal experience that the US government does not distinguish between a US company offering products and services in the US and a US company offering those products and services outside the US. Even foreign subsidiaries are held accountable to US laws and regulations if the US parent has sufficient control of the company. Bigger companies get a little bit more leeway to negotiate with the US Federal government on this but if the US decides that something is illegal or prohibited, the Justice Department doesn't really care what country the prohibited activity occurred in, it'll walk the executive chain to pick people to prosecute. The only way a company could complete avoid this scenario is if it licensed its product or service to an independent entity outside the US. And even then the DOJ would likely attempt to force the termination of the license agreement if it results in a product or service being offered in a prohibited jurisdiction. None of this is new, or due to Trump, or even partisan.

elmo2you 6y ago
You are correct, on each and every count. However, none of that is related to what I tried to highlight. Sure, the US is (rightfully so) subjecting every company within its jurisdiction to US law, no matter on which market they operate. Sometimes they go even further and say non-US companies can be held liable, when they somehow interact with the USA or its citizens. That can sometimes become a bit dicey with jurisdictions, but even that is not the point here. The point is that a US-based company is operating on a market outside the US and (most likely) is operating in a way that is within the law of that market. To put bluntly: I don't give a #### about how the US treats companies on their territory, regardless where those operate. I care about US-based companies abiding to law wherever they do business. If they can not do that, they should cease to operate there. Whether it's the US government or something else that is to blame for the situation is irrelevant.

epc 6y ago

My shorter version: Precedent in the US is that the US views its jurisdiction over US citizens and corporations as global. If I as a US citizen step over the border to your country and bribe an official of your country in order to gain a commercial contract, I can (and probably, though not definitely) will be prosecuted for breaking US law, regardless of whether or not bribery is perfectly legal in your country. Same for corporations: if the act is prohibited in the US, the US Government generally does not distinguish between whether the act occurred in the US or not. This is not new. The Internet exacerbates the potential for conflicts, but it’s not a new problem with the rise of the Internet.

elmo2you 6y ago
The US government should do whatever it sees fit for its subjects. That's not the issue. The issue is that a US company should also be held accountable for whatever they violates abroad. Not by the US government, of course. But by the authorities of whatever foreign market they operate on (the only authority with jurisdiction anyways). While the tide is gradually changing, so far a substantial part of the problem is that the US government has quite a few nasty ways to shield US companies from being seriously held accountable abroad. Still, the longer that reality exists, the more inevitable it will become that at some point US companies will simply be barred altogether from (some) foreign markets. You can only abuse a dominant position for so long, before the receiving end will no longer put up with it. That is, of course, when (or as soon as) they have the luxury of choice in the matter.