4 ms·

> not offer services to several countries The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? No

• epolanski 7mo ago
  > What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
  • troad 7mo ago
    You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws? Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market. You are absolutely free to sell your services to whoever you want, but the US is equally free to refuse to allow you to operate domestically if you're breaking their laws (and otherwise make your life difficult if you e.g. rely on US banking infrastructure). If you want to do business in Iran, don't expect to do business in the US.
    • epolanski 7mo ago
      Except that the hint was for criminal charges, not lack of business :)
      • troad 7mo ago
        Zero difference. If someone is selling children's toys, and 30% of her customers are in the US, and then it turns out her toys are made entirely of lead and asbestos, should she not face US criminal penalties? You choose to do business in a jurisdiction, you bind yourself to their laws. That means all laws, not just ones you like, or think that are relevant to your business. Laws are not a buffet. Don't do business in jurisdictions where you feel like you cannot comply with domestic law. No one is requiring you to do business in the US. People choose to do business in the US so they can profit from US customers, and that's totally fine, but doesn't come with some magical immunity to US law.
        • epolanski 7mo ago
          I agree with you, but you keep missing that: 1. This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba e.g. the embargo applies to US individuals and companies. The rest of the world, e.g. European countries, have normal relations with Cuba and nobody gives two damns about the embargo. 2. The same thing happens in reverse and applies to US companies doing business overseas.
          • troad 7mo ago
            > This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba Sure it can. It can do whatever it wants in its domestic courts. Turkmenistan can prosecute you and me right now for failure to pay insufficient deference to dear leader. Whether this impacts us in any way is the actual question. We presumably do not want to do business in Turkmenistan. But the OP wants to do business in the US. Ergo, the OP is subject to US law, irrespective of what he thinks US law should look like or what its limits ought to be. OP doesn't have to do business in the US at all and be completely and utterly untouched by US law - he won't be extradited anywhere unless the offence in question is also an offence in his own country, which as you point out, the Cuban embargo (etc) isn't. This is how you and I stay safe from the many Turkmenistani indictments hanging over us. This is not a case of someone bravely standing up for justice and freedom, this is a case of someone wanting to profit from US customers but somehow have total immunity from US law. And I'd respectfully point out that if the countries were reversed, and we were talking about e.g. Russia, the European countries would be apoplectic about anyone doing business there. Imagine a Brazilian company selling drone motors to Russia. Can its executives expect to travel freely through the EU without fear of arrest? Do business in the EU?
            • epolanski 7mo ago
              [flagged]
              • troad 7mo ago
    • ytoawwhra92 7mo ago
      Love contrasting this post with Americans' reactions when they're presented with a GDPR cookie banner.
      • what 7mo ago
        Those cookie banners shouldn’t be presented to Americans.
        • Dansvidania 7mo ago
          Why shouldn’t they? Or do you mean it is not required for US citizens?
        • lawn 7mo ago
          They shouldn't be presented to Europeans either.
    • zarzavat 7mo ago
      You may be interested to learn about the EU Blocking Statute which is designed to protect EU companies from certain US sanctions: > The European Union does not recognise the extra-territorial application of laws adopted by third countries and considers such effects to be contrary to international law. (yes the irony is palpable) > The blocking statute prohibits compliance by EU operators with any requirement or prohibition based on the specified foreign laws. It is illegal to comply with certain US sanctions in the EU. This is most likely what GP is talking about. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-autonomy/extraterritoriality-blocking-statute_en https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...
    • dash2 7mo ago
      > Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market. I mean I find this quite plausible, but you should tell the guys in the thread above, who are all posting "ha, the UK thinks it can tell a non-UK website what to do, how absurd!" and metaphorically pouring their tea out in Boston Harbour.
      • Loughla 7mo ago
        I think there's a difference between a website that citizens from country a can access but who are not necessarily the group the website is created for, for free, and a paid saas that I sell to citizens of country a.
        • flir 7mo ago
          Maybe there's a moral difference (I doubt it personally), but there's clearly not a legal difference. They're both examples of Country A putting a law on the books that constrains sites in Country B. "Don't sell", "don't serve", "don't stand on one leg while fulfilling orders", they're all the same class of overreach.
    • egorfine 7mo ago
      > You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law I don't think this is how the law works. Think of it this way: any customer from Libya makes it customary for my female co-workers to wear hijab at the workplace. Thus a customer who voluntarily purchases services from a company in a different jurisdiction does NOT automatically makes this company subject to his jurisdiction.
      • bloppe 7mo ago
        It certainly does automatically make you subject to that jurisdiction if you want to continue to do business there smoothly. Consider compliance with European laws by American tech companies. Sure, Apple loves counter-suing the EC over the DMA, but that's very much participating in the legal system and thus being "subject". And when they lose all their appeals, they pay the fine, because otherwise they would be forced out of Europe. Libya doesn't actually have a law requiring foreign companies to wear hijabs, but if they did, they could try to enforce it. The smart thing to do would be to stop doing business there. If you don't, they would probably force Libyan internet providers to block you, and maybe file charges against you and possibly your customers there. If you live in Europe, you could probably ignore the charges, but most people don't want that hanging over their heads, especially when your Libyan business has been shut down anyway. Consider when Russia tried to impose a fine on Google that was worth more than the total amount of money that has ever existed globally. Google just stopped doing business in Russia, because obviously that was their only choice.
        • egorfine 7mo ago
          > It certainly does automatically make you subject to that jurisdiction It doesn't. Laws only apply to a certain territory. So if Libya doesn't like the way I provide services to their citizens they can impose any laws they want but these laws only work on their own sovereignty.
    • xingped 7mo ago
      > US consumer protection laws Bahahaha. Good one! Let's be real, consumer protection laws might as well not exist for Americans. Before the "well akshually"s - Do they exist? Yes. Are they enforced? Barely, if at all. Do you have any hope of recourse if they're ignored? Nope! Are they being ripped to shreds by the current government in real time right this very minute? You betcha.
  • snypher 7mo ago
    It matters because it gives context to the potential reason they were behaving that way.
• egorfine 7mo ago
  > It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers So any customer from Libya makes it customary for my female co-workers to wear hijab at the workplace, right? Same logic. No. A customer who voluntarily purchases services from a company in a different jurisdiction does NOT automatically makes this company subject to his specific jurisdiction.
  • Spivak 7mo ago
    She does if you want to keep doing business there. That's the stick that's available. Either you follow their laws despite not being in their jurisdiction or you can't sell to customers in Libya. I don't like it same as you because it makes doing business on the internet complicated but it's how it works in practice.
    • egorfine 7mo ago
      > you can't sell to customers in Libya Why though? Libya has no jurisdiction over my business in the EU. I place no restrictions on who can purchase a subscription on my SaaS. I certainly can sell to customers in Libya. All Libya can do is ban my business, but they can only implement that ban within their own sovereign borders.
      • Spivak 7mo ago
        I suppose inability for you to sell and inability for customers to buy are technically different but the end result ends up being the same. If you need to access that market then they have leverage over you to force compliance with their laws.
        • egorfine 7mo ago
          I'm not sure Libya has any solution to prevent their citizens from purchasing my services. Blocking access to my site, sure. But preventing citizens from using my service is going to be much, much harder. So, no.