3 ms·
Facebook could have refused on the grounds that they aren't based out Nebraska and not subject to their jurisdiction. They could have used some of their extensi
by erellsworth 4y ago
Facebook could have refused on the grounds that they aren't based out Nebraska and not subject to their jurisdiction. They could have used some of their extensive legal budget to challenge the warrant on those grounds.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> grounds that they aren't based out Nebraska and not subject to their jurisdiction This isn’t how jurisdiction works. Facebook had a customer in Nebraska who allegedly did a crime in Nebraska under Nebraska law. That creates a legal nexus for them there.
- kragen 4y agoFacebook almost surely does have a jurisdictional nexus in Nebraska, but not merely because they have a customer there.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoOne can argue that Facebook users aren't customers either.
- kragen 4y agoThis is a good point.
- throwayyy479087 4y agoThat's the only interesting point in this thread. "We don't have any advertisers from Nebraska so no customers" would be an interesting case.
- kragen 4y agoNot only is it not sufficient to have customers in a jurisdiction to have a jurisdictional nexus there, it also is not necessary.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoOperating a telecommunications service doesn't automatically make you subject to every state's jurisdiction. Interstate communication is subject to federal control. States can't willy-nilly act like they can reach outside their boundaries.
- kragen 4y agoFor "telecommunications services" in the US I think having customers in a state is sufficient to establish nexus: https://www.avalara.com/blog/en/north-america/2016/01/communications-nexus-tax-tips-for-wireless-providers.html https://www.avalara.com/blog/en/north-america/2016/01/commun... But it's debatable whether Facebook Messenger is a "telecommunications service" under US law.
- swayvil 4y agoThey don't want to establish a history of noncompliance with the big dogs.