6 ms·

Look up "long arm statutes". State courts can have jurisdiction over out-of-state entities, subject to limitations established by federal precedent. Doing busin

Look up "long arm statutes". State courts can have jurisdiction over out-of-state entities, subject to limitations established by federal precedent. Doing business with customers who reside in a state generally puts you under that state's jurisdiction, at least for purposes related to that business.

what 2mo ago
Define “doing business”. If no money is exchanged, how are you “doing business” with them?
- braiamp 2mo ago
  Doing business is doing business, money isn't necessary to "do business". If you hold any interest and that person has any relationship with you in a way that can be inferred that a contract is implied, then that's business. That's why travel to get an "agreement" is considered a business expense, even if the agreement never materialize.
  - what 2mo ago
    > doing business is doing business That’s not much of a definition.
    - vvbull 2mo ago
      You'd hate practicing law.
      - pinkyboy 2mo ago
        "reasonable person, what kind of definition is that???"
- edmundsauto 2mo ago
  I’m not sure the definition matters here. Either you are doing business and this regulation makes certain things now illegal; or you are not doing business and it’s unsolicited and spam.
- connicpu 2mo ago
  If you've collected data on a California resident with the intent to profit from its sale then you're doing some type of business with respect to California
- dredmorbius 2mo ago
  From another California regulation (requiring telemarketers to register and secure a bond): A seller is deemed to be doing business in the state if the seller solicits prospective purchasers from locations in California or solicits prospective purchasers who are located in this state.' <https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg> The DROP act creates a right to California residents. To the extent I've read the statute, it doesn't define what entities are covered (see: <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.81.48.&part=4.&chapter=&article https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...>), which seems to me to suggest that affected entities are defined by their data collection from California residents, not where or how they engage in activities otherwise in California.

what 2mo ago

Define “doing business”. If no money is exchanged, how are you “doing business” with them?

braiamp 2mo ago
Doing business is doing business, money isn't necessary to "do business". If you hold any interest and that person has any relationship with you in a way that can be inferred that a contract is implied, then that's business. That's why travel to get an "agreement" is considered a business expense, even if the agreement never materialize.
- what 2mo ago
  > doing business is doing business That’s not much of a definition.
  - vvbull 2mo ago
    You'd hate practicing law.
    - pinkyboy 2mo ago
      "reasonable person, what kind of definition is that???"
edmundsauto 2mo ago
I’m not sure the definition matters here. Either you are doing business and this regulation makes certain things now illegal; or you are not doing business and it’s unsolicited and spam.
connicpu 2mo ago
If you've collected data on a California resident with the intent to profit from its sale then you're doing some type of business with respect to California
dredmorbius 2mo ago
From another California regulation (requiring telemarketers to register and secure a bond): A seller is deemed to be doing business in the state if the seller solicits prospective purchasers from locations in California or solicits prospective purchasers who are located in this state.' <https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg> The DROP act creates a right to California residents. To the extent I've read the statute, it doesn't define what entities are covered (see: <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=1.81.48.&part=4.&chapter=&article https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...>), which seems to me to suggest that affected entities are defined by their data collection from California residents, not where or how they engage in activities otherwise in California.