What happens is that the US spymasters ask the Swiss spymasters very nicely to spy on this foreigner using their countries' tech services. Legally, there's no r

What happens is that the US spymasters ask the Swiss spymasters very nicely to spy on this foreigner using their countries' tech services. Legally, there's no real way to contest this, because most rights apply to "citizens" or "residents" and not "people". If you sue Switzerland for violating your right to privacy, Swiss courts won't do anything, because you're not a Swiss citizen. If you sue American courts for violating your right to privacy, American courts won't do anything, because the US constitution only binds the US[0] and not Switzerland. There is plenty of law, precedent, and/or jurisprudence[1] in both jurisdictions that restricts a country spying on their own citizens, but not a country spying on other countries' citizens. So yes, the Swiss company can technically ignore a US court order, but Switzerland can issue their own court orders that will have far few protections for you. That's also not to mention that the basis for jurisdiction is actually really broad. Like, some countries will actually use "speaking our language" as a jurisdictional basis. So the likelihood of a Swiss company being able to resist a court order is lower than you think - basically the company would have to cut all ties with the US and forego the entire US market to protect you. Of course, I'm writing all of the above assuming you are an innocent, privacy-conscious individual, where: 1. The balance of US law is in your favor 2. Swiss law is not 3. Stolen information can be laundered across jurisdictions If you are actually committing crimes, then both US and Swiss law are against your right to privacy, and adding more jurisdictions will absolutely help you in the sense that it makes it far harder to investigate your crimes. That's the sort of thing that the "Swiss privacy law" hype is trying to market off of. The spymasters generally don't like the idea of letting regular law enforcement agencies (LEAs) touch their tools, if only because the evidence they gathered probably isn't actually admissible. So LEAs have to go through official channels[2], which are actually slower and less efficient than things like Five Eyes. [0] State Actors doctrine notwithstanding [1] French for "precedent, but we're not doing that 'common law' thing the filthy English do" [2] CLOUD Act and parallel construction notwithstanding