[CaptainOfCoit]

They used to have UK legal presence, and planning to move out. The UK is saying something like "crimes done during your presence won't be ignored".

If Imgur never had UK presence, then yeah there would be no teeth. But if you're doing business in a country you can't break the law then leave and expect them to just ignore what you did during that time.

[BeFlatXIII]

…but how enforceable would the fine be? They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.

[pixl97]

Depends.

If you're the US you call planes of out the sky that have representatives and owners of the companies on them.

I'm assuming any leadership of Imgur would want to avoid going to the UK for the rest of eternity.

[Vespasian]

Or they simply decide to pay the fine for the short duration they were not in compliance.

I would do that (after appealing) and be done with it.

[whywhywhywhy]

Ultimately if enough businesses decide it isn't worth the bother than the restrictions will disappear.

[flumpcakes]

Why does it have to be immediately enforceable? Now Imgur have thrown the baby out with the bath water and cannot serve the UK and it leaves a big market for another company to come along and capitalise on that.

American companies are too use to being able to bully their way in America. Some countries do have better consumer protection laws.

[gr3ml1n]

It's not a particularly big market, and given the regulatory hurdles: it's simply not worth doing business with the UK for most companies anymore.

[wizzwizz4]

The regulatory hurdles here are quite small, actually. If COPPA were worded better, Imgur would've been in violation of that, too, from what I can tell of the complaint.

[CaptainOfCoit]

> They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.

How do you expect the "pull out" to happen? They must have had a UK bank account or similar, whose transfers won't get approved as they're trying to escape from criminal prosecution. Or they'll work with the US to ensure responsible individuals are held responsible.

It isn't exactly the first time someone/something commits crime in a country then try to escape, there is lots of ways to work with others on this.

[hollerith]

>they'll work with the US to ensure responsible individuals are held responsible.

I heard here recently during a similar discussion (about 4chan and this same British watchdog agency) that the US does not allow extradition of its citizens for breaking non-US laws if the behavior is legal in the US.

[chrisjj]

> They must have had a UK bank account or similar

How so? None is needed to take revenue from UK-seen ads.

[baobun]

They had more business than that in the UK. UK advertisers as customers for example

[chrisjj]

I do not see how having UK advertisers necessitates the publisher having a UK bank account.

[BeFlatXIII]

> Or they'll work with the US to ensure responsible individuals are held responsible.

May US voters put America First over international law.