[rootusrootus]

> US has next to zero privacy protections

One in five US citizens is protected by a regulation that looks an awful lot like GDPR. And if history is any guide, it won't be long before that number gets a lot closer to 100%.

[AstralStorm]

You mean California. And California laws do not apply to companies located in, say, Delaware.

EU laws apply to all member states and even entities just dealing with EU members (which is why Privacy Shield is dead again, USA lied).

[dragonwriter]

> You mean California. And Californiaaws do not apply to companies located in, say, Delaware.

They do, in fact, when it does business in California. (Also, California is less than 1/5 of the country, so the reference is not just to California law.)

[AstralStorm]

The problem here is that having remote customers does not count as "doing business in". So it only applies to brick and mortar located in Cali.

Otherwise it's illegal as due to fun laws only FED can regulate interstate commerce.

[dragonwriter]

> The problem here is that having remote customers does not count as "doing business in". So it only applies to brick and mortar located in California

Physical presence is not a requirement for commerce clause nexus (though it definitely satisfies it.) I’m not sure it ever was viewed as a requirement outside of sales taxes, and the precedent establishing it as a requirement for sales taxes was overturned by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018).

> Otherwise it's illegal as due to fun laws only FED can regulate interstate commerce.

The “fun law” is the Constitution's Commerce Clause, and that’s not actually how it works.