5 ms·

Being "100% subject to European law" doesn't override the parent company's obligations under US law. At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate

Being "100% subject to European law" doesn't override the parent company's obligations under US law. At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate either US or EU law. Which one will the US parent company prioritize if/when faced with enforcement actions? The only way this would work is if the European operation were truly independent & separately owned, no corporate control from the US. But I don't think that's what AWS is proposing.

crazygringo 1y ago
> At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate either US or EU law. No, that's the whole point of this setup. Amazon will not be violating US law when its European subsidiary says no, we won't respond to your subpoena. It would be if Amazon USA owned the European data centers directly and employed American workers. But it will do neither. The US courts can't compel companies to do things they have no legal authority over. It doesn't matter that Amazon owns the subsidiary -- fundamentally, the subsidiary is a foreign entity.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Case in point: China. China forces foreign companies to run this setup all the time, and its one of the chief issues with outsourcing and IP property theft/transfer (depending how you look at it). This is an arrangement which enormously benefits Europe because it's quite similar.
skissane 1y ago
> Being "100% subject to European law" doesn't override the parent company's obligations under US law. At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate either US or EU law. Which one will the US parent company prioritize if/when faced with enforcement actions? IANAL/etc, but the subsidiary and the parent are different people (legal personhood). The US parent is only responsible for the EU subsidiary’s actions under US law to the extent it has effective control of them. If the parent tells the subsidiary to obey a US legal order, and the management of the subsidiary refuses on the grounds of EU law - then the management of the parent has done what US law requires them to do. The US management might consider firing the EU management and replacing them with new managers - but if the job requirement is “must be willing to break local law”, nobody with an appropriate background is going to apply, so if they fire them they won’t be able to replace them, hence they are legally justified in not firing them. It is normally true that a wholly-owned subsidiary just does whatever the parent’s executive management demands, but this is one of the rare cases where that generalisation breaks down. (If we consider non-wholly-owned subsidiaries, it becomes a much more common thing.)
- lazide 1y ago
  That is a rather laughable actual protection isn’t it? People do stuff because their bosses tell them too.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    They generally don't when the boss is safely protected in another country, but you'll go to jail in your own country.
    - lazide 1y ago
      They do all the time. See every mining company, ever.
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        Or every restaurant, or construction company.
  - skissane 1y ago
    I know people (even members of my own family) who have resigned jobs because they felt the personal legal risk to themselves was excessive. In my experience, it is a much more common event at the C-suite level, where that risk is most acute, than at the level of individual contributors. If the company goes bankrupt, the ICs in accounting are unlikely to be personally found liable for the company’s debts - but if the CEO and CFO are proven to be guilty of “trading while insolvent”, they can be.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Sure, then they replace them with someone with no such insight/scruples. They quit because the company wasn’t going to change ‘the orders’, yes? Eventually they found someone who would do what they were told without quitting, that is how this works.
      - 1y ago
petcat 1y ago
The EU is being squeezed by USA and China on all sides whilst staring down the barrel of a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. They're in a really bad place and don't have a lot of options. It's why they were so quick to succumb to Trump's lopsided trade agreement.
adrr 1y ago
Amazon has ownership of the company not a management stake. If you had a startup and filled all your boards seats with only EU board members. That doesn't mean the CEO and other officers are bound by EU law. Sure they could fire CEO and other officers but I bet the bylaws of the company requires officers to be EU citizens.

crazygringo 1y ago

> At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate either US or EU law. No, that's the whole point of this setup. Amazon will not be violating US law when its European subsidiary says no, we won't respond to your subpoena. It would be if Amazon USA owned the European data centers directly and employed American workers. But it will do neither. The US courts can't compel companies to do things they have no legal authority over. It doesn't matter that Amazon owns the subsidiary -- fundamentally, the subsidiary is a foreign entity.

XorNot 1y ago
Case in point: China. China forces foreign companies to run this setup all the time, and its one of the chief issues with outsourcing and IP property theft/transfer (depending how you look at it). This is an arrangement which enormously benefits Europe because it's quite similar.

skissane 1y ago

> Being "100% subject to European law" doesn't override the parent company's obligations under US law. At best, it creates a legal conflict where AWS must violate either US or EU law. Which one will the US parent company prioritize if/when faced with enforcement actions? IANAL/etc, but the subsidiary and the parent are different people (legal personhood). The US parent is only responsible for the EU subsidiary’s actions under US law to the extent it has effective control of them. If the parent tells the subsidiary to obey a US legal order, and the management of the subsidiary refuses on the grounds of EU law - then the management of the parent has done what US law requires them to do. The US management might consider firing the EU management and replacing them with new managers - but if the job requirement is “must be willing to break local law”, nobody with an appropriate background is going to apply, so if they fire them they won’t be able to replace them, hence they are legally justified in not firing them. It is normally true that a wholly-owned subsidiary just does whatever the parent’s executive management demands, but this is one of the rare cases where that generalisation breaks down. (If we consider non-wholly-owned subsidiaries, it becomes a much more common thing.)

lazide 1y ago
That is a rather laughable actual protection isn’t it? People do stuff because their bosses tell them too.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  They generally don't when the boss is safely protected in another country, but you'll go to jail in your own country.
  - lazide 1y ago
    They do all the time. See every mining company, ever.
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      Or every restaurant, or construction company.
- skissane 1y ago
  I know people (even members of my own family) who have resigned jobs because they felt the personal legal risk to themselves was excessive. In my experience, it is a much more common event at the C-suite level, where that risk is most acute, than at the level of individual contributors. If the company goes bankrupt, the ICs in accounting are unlikely to be personally found liable for the company’s debts - but if the CEO and CFO are proven to be guilty of “trading while insolvent”, they can be.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Sure, then they replace them with someone with no such insight/scruples. They quit because the company wasn’t going to change ‘the orders’, yes? Eventually they found someone who would do what they were told without quitting, that is how this works.
    - 1y ago

petcat 1y ago

The EU is being squeezed by USA and China on all sides whilst staring down the barrel of a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. They're in a really bad place and don't have a lot of options. It's why they were so quick to succumb to Trump's lopsided trade agreement.

adrr 1y ago

Amazon has ownership of the company not a management stake. If you had a startup and filled all your boards seats with only EU board members. That doesn't mean the CEO and other officers are bound by EU law. Sure they could fire CEO and other officers but I bet the bylaws of the company requires officers to be EU citizens.