- Australia has laws that about child sex tourism aimed at those that go to Asian countries with lax laws or enforcement. These crimes are committed in other countries [1]
- Foreign financial institutions are subject to FATCA when serving US customers, an issue that has made it difficult for US expats to even open bank accounts in some jurisdictions [2]
- Australia has some pretty strict insider trading laws such that two foreigners who trade in inside information about an ASX listed company while they're on foreign soil (may) have commited a crime in Australia
- Sanctions on the likes of Iran and North Korea prevent US companies or persons from trading with entities from sanctioned states even if such transactions take place entirely on foreign soil.
- US citizens living in other countries are required to file taxes with the IRS even though during the tax year the citizen may never have stepped foot on US soil and any income is earned and paid entirely in foreign jurisdictions.
So I'm not saying GDPR applies or doesn't. I honestly don't know. I'm just saying not being in Europe and being small aren't the automatic defenses you seem to think they are.
[1]: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/12/13/australia-intr...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...
Blocking EU users is a smart business choice to avoid any possible legal issues and far easier than compliance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Privacy_Protection_Act
Edit: Apprently, there is a new one on its way: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2018/06/28/ho...
People like me are the sort who think about Stalin and sigh: "oh, things were so good back then!". That's why we love regulation.
I expect it's more or less the same thing that the US can do to you: Depends on what assets you have now (or may have later) in the EU, whether you ever plan to visit the EU, and what treaties are ratified now (or later, been bitten by this one) by the US and EU countries.
Ignoring the laws of foreign countries is possible if you're willing to put in the resources, it's much cheaper and less risky just to comply. The general idea of being forced (literally or practically) to comply with the regulations of other governments is completely fucked up in my personal opinion[1], but until your government decides to do something about it, there's not much you can do. At least, you get the option to expand in a foreign county market as a consolation prize.
In the end, this is just a comment on some internet board. I'd recommend asking a lawyer that specializes in these matters if you really want to know about the risks involved.
1: I'll state that I'm not against the GDPR in general and think it's introduction is long, long overdue. What I object to is having some foreign entity I have no connection to forcing me to comply to their will. That's a can of worms governments will regret opening.
that's part of being a us citizen, and complying with your own law. you can renounce citizenship if you prefer to not comply with IRS.
> Australia has laws that about child sex tourism aimed at those that go to Asian countries with lax laws or enforcement. These crimes are committed in other countries
So if a US citizen violates Australian laws in Thailand, are they guilty and punishable by Australia? The example above is still against Australians, even if the crime is committed overseas. But... it's only against people who've been convicted, and it's basically just shutting down their ability to leave the country.
The customer in question was stating that simply someone being a citizen of a European country, then visiting my client's shop somehow subjected my client to European law. I don't find any examples you've cited above to be remotely comparable to this situation.
No, I take it back, your banking situation is sort of similar, except the banks in question are likely directly or indirectly connected with US banks. If they want to continue to enjoy whatever status that gives them, they're probably going to comply with those regulations. I also suspect that it's really their own government's financial regulators which have an agreement with US regulators (the wikipedia page seems to jive with that). Those FFIs are voluntarily(?) agreeing to the terms of FACTA because they enjoy some level of benefit (not being shut down by their own govt regulators, perhaps).
There are laws about heresy and apostasy in middle eastern regions - I'm probably violating their laws on a regular basis. Beyond a highly unlikely fatwa that may get issues against me, I'm not sure what they can really do (or indeed, that I would really be 'liable' in any real sense of the word)