4 ms·

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 offe

by 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.

by epc 6y ago

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.