6 ms·

I know I've personally spent a large portion of my time updating systems to be compliant in the last few years, in North American companies.

• mro_name 4y ago
  might well have been yak shaving. If a company is under US jurisdiction it simply cannot comply to EU data protection.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• mananaysiempre 4y ago
  ... Are those North American companies prepared to willingly break EU laws then? Because in my (amateur) understanding it’s logically impossible to satisfy both CLOUD Act requirements and EU data protection ones (not just GDPR, but general due-process rights the CJEU considers required for privacy violations and US courts deny noncitizens).
  • mike_d 4y ago
    Yes. Whenever a US law and a foreign law conflict, the US law always wins when you are in the United States. Complying with US laws is also a perfectly valid defense if a European citizen or state ends up bringing action against you in a US court.
    • LunaSea 4y ago
      European states simply sue in their own territory or in front of the European Union Court of Justice.
      • mike_d 4y ago
        Yup. Which is basically a no-op. You need a court having jurisdiction over the defendant to have any relief. Even if you receive a financial judgement, international law does not put much weight in absentia cases.
        • LunaSea 4y ago
          If you have customers in the EU than the court has jurisdiction. If the company doesn't comply, fines will be directly taken from customer payments for example.
          • mike_d 4y ago
            Again - regardless of if a domestic court believes they have jurisdiction, any court case not brought in the venue of the defendant is effectively meaningless as you cannot be granted meaningful relief. If the destination bank account is outside the EU, they can't touch it without cooperation from the defendant countries courts - which requires you to file in the defendants venue. If an EU country unilaterally seized intra-bank remittance they would be cut off from the international banking system without hesitation. You seem to really be grasping at straws here, but the EU is not some all powerful entity that can enforce its laws outside its jurisdiction.
            • LunaSea 4y ago
              > Again - regardless of if a domestic court believes they have jurisdiction, any court case not brought in the venue of the defendant is effectively meaningless as you cannot be granted meaningful relief. Of course you can, you simply reach for assets within the border of said member country or the EU. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you can for example get the funds from outgoing payments by customers of said company. You can also freeze accounts, prevent ownership or investments by any citizen of that country as well. > If the destination bank account is outside the EU, they can't touch it without cooperation from the defendant countries courts - which requires you to file in the defendants venue. If an EU country unilaterally seized intra-bank remittance they would be cut off from the international banking system without hesitation. There is nothing unilateral about a country seising money as payment of a fine from a company. This is a standard tool that every countries' IRS equivalent agency have in their tool belt. > You seem to really be grasping at straws here, but the EU is not some all powerful entity that can enforce its laws outside its jurisdiction. I never said that EU is all powerful, however, if business is done within the EU, EU countries have the power to access any and all funds going to the US for companies that do not comply. They can also decide to block said service as a punitive measure.