Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrtythreeforty | Hacker News Reader

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the key phrase is "specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment..." That is, a phone designed to be used underwater would be exempt, but a phone that can get wet occasionally - or even be immersed - is not specifically designed to operate underwater.

Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.

View on HN

> Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.

Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.

Sometimes it works.

Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad.

Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid)

And it seems it was confirmed being legal...

Either they are the customer and must pay it, or if they are legally not, they can be asked for the list of customers so that they can all be fined, which will lead to customers suing them.

Usually that's how these "lifehacks" around regulations wind up playing out.

The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.

Where did you read that? In my experience, when ordering from outside the EU (I only have experience with the US, but I don't think it matters) I'm usually on the hook for import duties and VAT when I receive the package. I have to pay those separately, and not to the retailer but to the delivery company.

The point is that, it's technically the end customer who pays the VAT. The seller collects it, on behalf of the state.

See my answer to your sibling

Do you have some links ? For me you can't sell without VAT if the person doesn't have a VAT number. In your exemple they don't seel a good but a service to order the good, VAT still need to be paid.

I read that in le monde (in French, paywalled I think)

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/07/11/des-...

They call the intermediate "dropshippers" (even in the French text)

I don't have a subscription to Le Monde, so can't read the whole article.

IANAL, but the linked EU directive doesn't seem to say that the seller has to charge VAT at the moment of sale, only that VAT is due, even in the case of an intermediary.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

I've just done a quick check on the site of B&H, an US-based reputable electronics store. If you try to send something somewhat expensive to France, they have the option of handling import duties and taxes or to handle it yourself.

Interesting, here in Poland when customs decided to tax my package i was ordered to also pay VAT on the product

In defence of us nerds, loopholes are very much a real thing. And I bet lawyers from manufacturers are also looking for a breach through this law, and they may have lobbyists try to insert some. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to try to look for one.

And even if the judge ultimately decides against the manufacturer, it will take willingness to enforce the regulation for that to happen, during which the manufacturer can take cover under the "loophole".

i find the key phrase to be portable battery. what makes one battery portable and another not? electric cars’ batteries are portable aren’t they? just because a battery is light that doesn’t mean it’s portable. the design criteria of many batteries are intentionally permanent, soldered and otherwise permanently affixed, requiring electronic support from the device itself (ie not integrated into the battery) for charge control. are these portable?

That's defined in Article 3:

"portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;"

What's an LMT or SLI battery? Well:

"light means of transport battery’ or ‘LMT battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 25 kg or less and is specifically designed to provide electric power for the traction of wheeled vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor alone or by a combination of motor and human power, including type-approved vehicles of category L within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and that is not an electric vehicle battery;"

and

"‘starting, lighting and ignition battery’ or ‘SLI battery’ means a battery that is specifically designed to supply electric power for starting, lighting, or ignition and that can also be used for auxiliary or backup purposes in vehicles, other means of transport or machinery;"

Unfortunately devs already one-weird-tricked the GDPR with the cookie banner malicious compliance. The relevant courts are reacting, but not fast enough and not across the board.

Most cookie banners are not compliant, since they offer "accept all" and "more options/customize".

Like you said the courts are just not fast enough

Reply on news.ycombinator.com