In all fairness, it's a stretch to call it "abuse": it's not uncommon for companies to preemptively extend a legally required service to those outside of the te

In all fairness, it's a stretch to call it "abuse": it's not uncommon for companies to preemptively extend a legally required service to those outside of the technically required jurisdiction due to the simplicity of not needing to account for who is where and if that's acceptable within their jurisdiction at this time It's also not unreasonable to expect that more jurisdictions may eventually follow suit, and so having to dedicate resources to ensure every request comes from an applicable jurisdiction that they legally are required to handle... ...might just be less preferable than fulfilling some "delete data" requests from less demanding areas. Besides, the idea that large corporations have free unaccountable reign to abuse systems of all sorts, while individuals should be quaking in their boots or snubbing their nose at the mere possibility of inconveniencing an hourly worker under faceless brands is a little over the top, IMO. It's just a request that can be denied.