[dabedee]

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.

[skissane]

> 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.)

[littlestymaar]

> nobody with an appropriate background is going to apply

You don't need any “appropriate background” if you are going to be a one time tool to enforce an action.

And given the previous managers know that they have no power to stop the move anyway (because their replacement will comply) I doubt many would be willing to sacrifice their position just to keep the moral high ground.

[lazide]

That is a rather laughable actual protection isn’t it? People do stuff because their bosses tell them too.

[skissane]

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]

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.

[skissane]

Right, and then if the US parent company orders EU managers to violate EU law, and when the managers refuse, replaces them with EU managers stupid enough to obey an illegal order - then what happens? The new EU managers get arrested and possibly end up in prison. Worse case scenario for the US parent, is the US parent company is (civilly or criminally) prosecuted under EU (or member state) law for giving the illegal order, convicted, and then as punishment, they are deprived of their local assets, including ownership of the subsidiary in question.

The parent company is ultimately at greater risk than the subsidiary-the parent can be deprived of ownership of its subsidiary, there is no equivalent consequence for the subsidiary.

[lazide]

Assuming it ever gets detected, which certainly isn’t going to be common eh?

I’m not really sure the point of your comment, actually. Are you asserting that no one would ever tell someone to do anything illegal because someone else might get in trouble for it?

Because if so, you might want to read the news?

[blibble]

> replaces them with EU managers

why would they do that? they'd put a US manager there temporarily

[dastbe]

At this point, you might as well use no cloud provider because at some point someone may be able to be leveraged? Whether that's by your country, another country, or some other nefarious entity.

[lazide]

That is where this is clearly going, yes. Which is why AWS is making this move, to try to head it off.

For those with nothing they particularly care about, it will be enough. For those with something to lose - currently small, but increasing, see the 80’s and the French Industrial espionage scandal - they’ll move back to on-prem if they haven’t already.

[crazygringo]

They generally don't when the boss is safely protected in another country, but you'll go to jail in your own country.

[lazide]

They do all the time. See every mining company, ever.

[littlestymaar]

Or every restaurant, or construction company.

[crazygringo]

> 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]

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.

[adrr]

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.

[petcat]

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.