[traceroute66]

> Well, no, only if you’re under the jurisdiction of the EU courts.

That is an awfully naïve argument my friend.

If it were that simple then there would, for example, be no need for a 68 page document entitled "The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Enforceability in U.S. Courts of Orders and Judgments Entered under GDPR"[1].

Allow me to quote from the Conclusion on page 68:

"As the Commentary shows, the enforceability of GDPR orders and judgments in a U.S. court will depend on several factors, including the nature of the relief sought through the order or judgment, the nature of the underlying violation and the process through which the order or judgment was initially obtained in the EU, and the U.S. organization’s contacts with the EU."

I would say that makes it pretty darn clear that it's far from being a simple argument about the jurisdiction in which the defendant is based.

[1]https://www.dorsey.com/~/media/files/newsresources/publicati...

[int_19h]

It's not about jurisdiction in which the defendant is based, of course, but rather in jurisdiction where it has presence.

If foreign laws were enforceable against actors who never operated in those other countries, we'd have to enforce Saudi laws against atheism and Russian laws against "gay propaganda".

[TedDoesntTalk]

There are literally millions of US companies with no EU presence, but who have online ordering of digital products. To the parent: Good luck enforcing GDPR on them. They won’t even abide by an EU subpoena that asks “what PII are you storing?” And right to delete? Haha, good luck.

[TylerE]

Why should they? What happens when, say, an Arab state passes a law that selling pornography gets a body part chopped off.

[TedDoesntTalk]

Good example. In the US, We thank our circumstances that we were not born in Saudi Arabia. And that’s about it. We buy porn and keep our body parts. The parent traceroute66 has no idea what he’s talking about.