5 ms·

How is one country able to fine businesses in other countries? What legal authority or ability do they have to do anything?

general1465 1y ago
It can't, that's why they moved out.
kylecazar 1y ago
If you do business in a country you have to operate under that country's laws and regulations, regardless of where you are registered. Most commonly it's the EU fining American tech for GDPR violations and related privacy shenanigans.
- stavros 1y ago
  Right, but the UK is saying they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access. At that point, what tooth does the fine have? "You must pay this fine if you want to, err, nothing I guess"?
  - yorwba 1y ago
    If Imgur decides they want to make money in the UK after all, and they have an unpaid fine outstanding, that money can be seized to pay off the fine first.
    - hayd 1y ago
      "make money in the UK" an oxymoron.
  - Yokolos 1y ago
    Honestly, that's the most noteworthy part of this. The EU hasn't pursued any site that just blocks EU access (see any number of US sites than aren't GDPR compliant and I can't access from Europe). The UK is threatening to do something nobody else has really done before. It's crazy, imo, because I can see a whole lot of sites immediately blocking the UK to avoid any potential litigation.
    - Ylpertnodi 1y ago
      >see any number of US sites than aren't GDPR compliant and I can't access from Europe 1. Make sites gdpr compliant by installing an extension or two. 2. Use a vpn to pretend to be not from Europe.
    - octo888 1y ago
      > The UK is threatening to do something nobody else has really done before. And what is that exactly?
  - nickslaughter02 1y ago
    Pay this fine if you don't want to be arrested when entering the UK? Not that they plan to after this...
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      Imgur isn't a person, and the UK gov isn't ICE. The whole point of corporations is that the company is liable, not its employees. also the shareholders are only liable for the money they put in, and not anything else. Convictions in the UK are non-transferable. you can't convict a company, then transfer guilt onto its employees, they need to be tried at the same time.
      - baobun 1y ago
        Are you saying that the Pavel Durov situation wouldn't have been possible in the UK? Seems naive.
        KaiserPro 1y ago
        > Are you saying that the Pavel Durov situation wouldn't have been possible in the UK first Durov is a French citizen, so its not like he's immune to french laws Second france has a totally different legal system to the UK(legal code vs common law) thirdly, he's the primary owner of telegram, not an employee Fourthly he was arrested on fraud, money laundering and child porn charges. Those are all criminal charges, not civil(GDPR is mostly Civil, same with the online saftey act, howefver with the OSA "senior managers" could be criminally liable, but again that's for CSAM, of which possession and distribution is a criminal already) > Seems naive. I really wish people would actually bother to understand law, because its pretty important. For programmers is much easier, because we are used to reading oddly worded specifically ordered paragraphs to divine logical intent. The law is really similar to programming.
  - bendigedig 1y ago
    Just because they've blocked UK users doesn't mean they aren't making revenue from advertising operating via the UK.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    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 1y ago
      …but how enforceable would the fine be? They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > 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 1y ago
        >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.
        kmeisthax 1y ago
        [dead]
        chrisjj 1y ago
        > They must have had a UK bank account or similar How so? None is needed to take revenue from UK-seen ads.
  - tomxor 1y ago
    There are various international economic laws, treaties and agreements between cooperating countries, whether or not any of them cover this scenario for to US, and whether the US would honour any agreement in the current political climate remains to be seen. But there are mechanisms in place that allow w the UK to reach US companies through each others legal systems to a degree and vice versa, regardless of asset location.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > whether the US would honour any agreement in the current political climate remains to be seen That this is even a question is bananas to me. Isn't that handled by the judicial system rather than involving politics/the administration? Shouldn't be possible for the US to have a treaty, and there are questions about if the treaty will actually be enforced or not, how could anyone trust the US as a whole for anything if those aren't enforced?
  - SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
    They're only threatening to fine them for previous violations of the law, not anything after they block access. Blocking access doesn't make the existing fine from when they were doing business in the UK go away, it just prevents future fines. Whether they can collect the money while Imgur aren't doing business in the UK is a different argument, but it's not particularly controversial that a country can fine a business operating in its jurisdiction for violating that country's laws. Even if those laws are authoritarian bullshit.
    - stavros 1y ago
      Sure, I'm only saying that I don't think there's much they can do by way of enforcement if the company decides to stop doing business there, especially over fines this small (it's not like the UK will push to extradite over this).
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    > they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access after they have infringed the data protection laws. For example, if I get a parking fine, and then move my car. I can't claim that now that I've moved my car, I'm not liable for the previous fine. This is no different.
- beardyw 1y ago
  Thanks. That needs to be in an HN guide somewhere, along with: online services cost money to run so don't be surprised that they need either fees or advertising.
- dreamlayers 1y ago
  Being accessible over the internet from a country can't be the same as having a physical presence there. Otherwise, anyone putting any content on the internet needs to comply with the laws of every single country.
noirscape 1y ago
Placing the fines is pretty easy; they just go through their legal system, finish up the case and get their judgement. Russia has a giant outstanding fine against Google for example since Google is not censoring things the Kremlin doesn't like, even though Google has no corporate presence in Russia and the fine is iirc now larger than the entire world economy. (So it's an unrealistic amount designed to deter Google more than anything else in practice.) The difficulty is getting enforcement; in practice, what happens is that the fine is put down as outstanding and if any executive or employee of the company enters the country, they're arrested and held hostage until the company pays up (or are held directly responsible for whatever the company is accused of). Most countries usually have corporate presency laws to avoid this sort of scenario though. Alternatively, the judgement can be enforced through diplomatic channels, but that's a giant clusterfuck and unlikely to succeed unless it's something that's very blatantly a crime in both countries, since it's effectively retrying the case. (And even then it can depend on if the country just doesn't feel like cooperating for that specific case, for no other reason than spite; France for example is fond of doing this.)
- tim333 1y ago
  Arresting executives is pretty extreme and not normally done. Generally countries will only go after assets and revenues in the country. Even for local companies. I had a UK ltd company and it got some fines for not filling in the correct forms but you can just close it down still owing money, which I did, and there's no liability for the director(s).
fulafel 1y ago
Being a country means you can make your own laws so the authority question has a pretty clear answer. Unless you disaviow national borders and state power and such stuff generally of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
- weberer 1y ago
  Read the question you're replying to again. Its a question about jurisdiction.
  - flumpcakes 1y ago
    If it affects UK citizens, living in the UK, then there's jurisdiction. Either the entities comply, remove their services to the UK, or they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc. Why should a US company harm UK citizens just because they're in the US? If you want to serve a market in another country you have to follow their rules. In this case, Imgur have been misusing UK children's information. Considering the laws are pretty similar, I suspect they're misusing EU children's information too.
    - gr3ml1n 1y ago
      > they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc. That's the OP's question. Bluntly: if I'm here, and they're bloviating over there, what can they actually do about it?
  - fulafel 1y ago
    It was about authority, synonymous with jurisdiction, I understood it. A sovereign country can decide they have authority/jurisdiction in anything they want. For example various countries have decided they can legally assassinate people in other countries even though other counties might not agree.
joe463369 1y ago
I invite you to search HN for 'libor' and see how many of the American users of this website were affronted by the vast fines dished out by the US government to UK-headquartered banks for manipulating the LONDON Interbank Offered Rate from their offices in London, UK. If you can find a single one I'll eat my hat.
prism56 1y ago
In agreement. What's with the fines. They're not in your jurisdiction, block them or leave them.

general1465 1y ago

It can't, that's why they moved out.

kylecazar 1y ago

If you do business in a country you have to operate under that country's laws and regulations, regardless of where you are registered. Most commonly it's the EU fining American tech for GDPR violations and related privacy shenanigans.

stavros 1y ago
Right, but the UK is saying they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access. At that point, what tooth does the fine have? "You must pay this fine if you want to, err, nothing I guess"?
- yorwba 1y ago
  If Imgur decides they want to make money in the UK after all, and they have an unpaid fine outstanding, that money can be seized to pay off the fine first.
  - hayd 1y ago
    "make money in the UK" an oxymoron.
- Yokolos 1y ago
  Honestly, that's the most noteworthy part of this. The EU hasn't pursued any site that just blocks EU access (see any number of US sites than aren't GDPR compliant and I can't access from Europe). The UK is threatening to do something nobody else has really done before. It's crazy, imo, because I can see a whole lot of sites immediately blocking the UK to avoid any potential litigation.
  - Ylpertnodi 1y ago
    >see any number of US sites than aren't GDPR compliant and I can't access from Europe 1. Make sites gdpr compliant by installing an extension or two. 2. Use a vpn to pretend to be not from Europe.
  - octo888 1y ago
    > The UK is threatening to do something nobody else has really done before. And what is that exactly?
- nickslaughter02 1y ago
  Pay this fine if you don't want to be arrested when entering the UK? Not that they plan to after this...
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    Imgur isn't a person, and the UK gov isn't ICE. The whole point of corporations is that the company is liable, not its employees. also the shareholders are only liable for the money they put in, and not anything else. Convictions in the UK are non-transferable. you can't convict a company, then transfer guilt onto its employees, they need to be tried at the same time.
    - baobun 1y ago
      Are you saying that the Pavel Durov situation wouldn't have been possible in the UK? Seems naive.
      - KaiserPro 1y ago
        > Are you saying that the Pavel Durov situation wouldn't have been possible in the UK first Durov is a French citizen, so its not like he's immune to french laws Second france has a totally different legal system to the UK(legal code vs common law) thirdly, he's the primary owner of telegram, not an employee Fourthly he was arrested on fraud, money laundering and child porn charges. Those are all criminal charges, not civil(GDPR is mostly Civil, same with the online saftey act, howefver with the OSA "senior managers" could be criminally liable, but again that's for CSAM, of which possession and distribution is a criminal already) > Seems naive. I really wish people would actually bother to understand law, because its pretty important. For programmers is much easier, because we are used to reading oddly worded specifically ordered paragraphs to divine logical intent. The law is really similar to programming.
- bendigedig 1y ago
  Just because they've blocked UK users doesn't mean they aren't making revenue from advertising operating via the UK.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  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 1y ago
    …but how enforceable would the fine be? They pull out and have no UK assets to seize.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > 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 1y ago
        >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.
        kmeisthax 1y ago
        [dead]
      - chrisjj 1y ago
        > They must have had a UK bank account or similar How so? None is needed to take revenue from UK-seen ads.
- tomxor 1y ago
  There are various international economic laws, treaties and agreements between cooperating countries, whether or not any of them cover this scenario for to US, and whether the US would honour any agreement in the current political climate remains to be seen. But there are mechanisms in place that allow w the UK to reach US companies through each others legal systems to a degree and vice versa, regardless of asset location.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    > whether the US would honour any agreement in the current political climate remains to be seen That this is even a question is bananas to me. Isn't that handled by the judicial system rather than involving politics/the administration? Shouldn't be possible for the US to have a treaty, and there are questions about if the treaty will actually be enforced or not, how could anyone trust the US as a whole for anything if those aren't enforced?
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  They're only threatening to fine them for previous violations of the law, not anything after they block access. Blocking access doesn't make the existing fine from when they were doing business in the UK go away, it just prevents future fines. Whether they can collect the money while Imgur aren't doing business in the UK is a different argument, but it's not particularly controversial that a country can fine a business operating in its jurisdiction for violating that country's laws. Even if those laws are authoritarian bullshit.
  - stavros 1y ago
    Sure, I'm only saying that I don't think there's much they can do by way of enforcement if the company decides to stop doing business there, especially over fines this small (it's not like the UK will push to extradite over this).
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > they'll fine Imgur even after Imgur blocked access after they have infringed the data protection laws. For example, if I get a parking fine, and then move my car. I can't claim that now that I've moved my car, I'm not liable for the previous fine. This is no different.
beardyw 1y ago
Thanks. That needs to be in an HN guide somewhere, along with: online services cost money to run so don't be surprised that they need either fees or advertising.
dreamlayers 1y ago
Being accessible over the internet from a country can't be the same as having a physical presence there. Otherwise, anyone putting any content on the internet needs to comply with the laws of every single country.

noirscape 1y ago

Placing the fines is pretty easy; they just go through their legal system, finish up the case and get their judgement. Russia has a giant outstanding fine against Google for example since Google is not censoring things the Kremlin doesn't like, even though Google has no corporate presence in Russia and the fine is iirc now larger than the entire world economy. (So it's an unrealistic amount designed to deter Google more than anything else in practice.) The difficulty is getting enforcement; in practice, what happens is that the fine is put down as outstanding and if any executive or employee of the company enters the country, they're arrested and held hostage until the company pays up (or are held directly responsible for whatever the company is accused of). Most countries usually have corporate presency laws to avoid this sort of scenario though. Alternatively, the judgement can be enforced through diplomatic channels, but that's a giant clusterfuck and unlikely to succeed unless it's something that's very blatantly a crime in both countries, since it's effectively retrying the case. (And even then it can depend on if the country just doesn't feel like cooperating for that specific case, for no other reason than spite; France for example is fond of doing this.)

tim333 1y ago
Arresting executives is pretty extreme and not normally done. Generally countries will only go after assets and revenues in the country. Even for local companies. I had a UK ltd company and it got some fines for not filling in the correct forms but you can just close it down still owing money, which I did, and there's no liability for the director(s).

fulafel 1y ago

Being a country means you can make your own laws so the authority question has a pretty clear answer. Unless you disaviow national borders and state power and such stuff generally of course. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

weberer 1y ago
Read the question you're replying to again. Its a question about jurisdiction.
- flumpcakes 1y ago
  If it affects UK citizens, living in the UK, then there's jurisdiction. Either the entities comply, remove their services to the UK, or they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc. Why should a US company harm UK citizens just because they're in the US? If you want to serve a market in another country you have to follow their rules. In this case, Imgur have been misusing UK children's information. Considering the laws are pretty similar, I suspect they're misusing EU children's information too.
  - gr3ml1n 1y ago
    > they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc. That's the OP's question. Bluntly: if I'm here, and they're bloviating over there, what can they actually do about it?
- fulafel 1y ago
  It was about authority, synonymous with jurisdiction, I understood it. A sovereign country can decide they have authority/jurisdiction in anything they want. For example various countries have decided they can legally assassinate people in other countries even though other counties might not agree.

joe463369 1y ago

I invite you to search HN for 'libor' and see how many of the American users of this website were affronted by the vast fines dished out by the US government to UK-headquartered banks for manipulating the LONDON Interbank Offered Rate from their offices in London, UK. If you can find a single one I'll eat my hat.

prism56 1y ago

In agreement. What's with the fines. They're not in your jurisdiction, block them or leave them.