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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who sells to my enemies is my enemy. You yourself can be subject to embargoes.
Francesca Albanese cannot do banking with banks from her own country because the US said so. Read: third parties that have relations with the US are barred from doing business with you or else risk being blacklisted too.
> 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?
> In any case, since you're unaware, Canada and EU have legislation that prohibits Canadian and European companies from obliging with US embargo of Cuba. That is, I can face criminal charges in Europe or Canada for refusing services to Cuba.
Yet almost everyone in those countries falls inline with US law because frankly the US is the exception and it's laws de facto apply in Canada and the EU.
Uhhh... the person whose company has 30% of its customers in the US. See above.
> You sound like the lunatic president you have
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Cool. I'm not American. I'm literally just quoting International Private Law (aka Conflict of Laws) to you. And I'm doing so while being careful to give other examples from other countries.
I've literally not once said I approve of any of these laws. But this seems to be the difference between you and me - I don't bend the rules to get to outcomes I like. You sell to Cuba, or you sell to the US. Do I like that? No. Is that the law? Yes. One would not be very effective in international business if they failed to realise this kind of thing.
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules
And, conversely, I think you're the usual case in trying to make the US a unique big bad, when they're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in this area, and certainly nothing that Europe doesn't constantly do when it regulates for foreigners and foreign businesses trying to interact with or through the EU. (Something the EU does more of, proudly and loudly, than anyone else on Earth.)
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.