Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgift | Hacker News Reader

It's no surprise that Apple will use every dirty trick they can find to keep their advantage. Hopefully, the EU takes a short look at Apples proposal, laughs and tells them that if they want to sell their products in the EU they will have to provide choice for everyone.

View on HN

Why would EU care? EU is about protecting EU residents. They don't have jurisdiction for what non-EU companies do outside of the EU.

Because it hurts EU customers by not applying the rules worldwide.

EU has no legislative powers outside EU.

Doesn't need to: You want into the EU market? EU demands this for the whole world. The EU can set any requirement it wants for market access. Such is the power of governments. And since someone will state that then other countries can do the same: Correct. And then companies will have to decide if the market in question is big enough to play by those rules.

> EU can set any requirement it wants for market access

One, as long as it’s a land with the rule of law, it can’t. Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that.

> Two, this would constitute starting a trade war over…browser engines. Good luck getting people who depend on popular votes to back you up on that.

It's so insane you'd be forgiven for forgetting that it already happened (with bipartisan political support): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

No, the EU cannot dictate what companies do in other countries. They can only require them to meet standards for services and products that are sold in the EU (or maybe if the companies are headquartered in EU).

They can. Every country can. And they do in other cases - USA is perfectly Ok to sanction Chinese/UAE bank for doing business with Russian military. If it's ok to it with sanctions - why it's not ok to do it for market access? Yes, this could create situation where things EU requires worldwide are in direct conflict with other countries but it's rather unlikely to happen.

You're being really obtuse, aren't you. The EU can say "If you do not implement that functionality on all iPhones world-wide, then you are not allowed to sell any iPhone at all in the EU".

I mean, of course they can say it, but it would lead to a legal and trade agreement shit show.

Didn't eu/uk do exactly this by blocking an acquisition of an us company by another us company and the company listened?

Which one?

Adobe / Figma, and Amazon / iRobot.

And to the point of the discussion, there are no "limits" to what jurisdiction governments have. Governments--the United States especially but many others--does it all the time, especially as concerns financial matters. Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone. China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America.

However the EU probably has self-imposed limits (or imposed by the member states) and as a practical matter only large or powerful states can get away with it.

Mergers are a different thing, though. In this case, it also impacts the EU - and you can't just say we won't merge in the EU but will merge in the US, doesn't make sense.

A more analogues example would be e.g. if the EU would have said "Hey Adobe, if you launch this feature in the US, you can't do business in the EU".

> China has penalized American companies for activities involving Americans in America.

What are you referring to?

> Many countries have declared that they have jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed any time, anywhere, by anyone.

This is a whole different topic, stop moving the goal posts.

China has fined companies for referring to Taiwan as a "country" on websites in English, directed towards Americans, for instance.

Apart from financial crimes the US imposes US law on foreign companies all the time--e.g. companies that do business with embargoed countries.

Also the US considers things like "a transaction was conducted in dollars" as a hook for US jurisdiction.

mergers are different thing as the outcome, but the mechanism is the same> two companies based in US could not merge because EU said so. The fact that the outcome of the merge vs outcome of some implemented features are different are just details that are not relevant for this discussion. EU absolutely can impose it's will on foreign companies and if those want to be present in EU market, they'll follow the rules

Nor do the US, but most legal impositions (no accounts under 13 years, dmca, etc) get replicated around the world because services want to work in the US market.

(Also, guess what happens if you copy Hollywood movies a bit too much? Jurisdiction goes out of the window... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#High_Court )

Oh, but you know they would love that.

I kind of see the EU legislation similar to California. After CA passes laws, eventually, the other states do as well. I'd imagine that the EU hopes that their legislation will influence others at some point too.

What CA laws do the other (presumably most or all) states pass?

Some CA laws only have an effect outside California because the state has so many people (with money). So if you are designing a physical product to sell, it is cheaper to just make one that complies with California.

Exactly, with automobiles being the most obvious. At one point, if you bought a car outside of CA, you might have needed to make physical modifications to it before it could be registered in CA with the catalytic converter being an example that jumps to mind. Eventually, all of the other states required them as well, and the auto manufacturers just made all of there cars compatible with the CA reqs anyways.

There are non-physical product laws as well. CA was a leader on medicinal cannabis, minimum wage, etc

What happens when markets have opposing requirements?

Ex: China, Russia, KSA, EU? No, they cannot dictate rules world-wide. Each market can dictate market requirements but they can't have them imposed in other jurisdictions they have no control over.

Then the company in question will have to decide which market is more important to them and follow the rules of that market, while not being present on the other.

Others have already noted the risk of a trade war following from that, but that doesn't preclude the EU/US/China/.. from still doing it. It's just a matter of how important they think the rule is.

> Because it hurts EU customers by not applying the rules worldwide.

It’s an entirely expected outcome for wanting to enact one-of-a-kind laws that force a foreign company into doing something they’ve obviously wanted to avoid.

How?

They care insofar it can affect EU residents outside the EU (this legislation ignores physical regions; it's your nationality in a EU country that makes you eligible for these rights). With the GDPR, the easiest solution is to make this info a voluntary choice for the user to say or to assume all your users are EU residents.

Microsoft is making their compliance with the DMA an option the user could pick during the OOBE. I assume Apple will use the region choice at the start of configuring iOS to do the same thing.

I can only think of one device maker that actively tries to region check the originating IP for legal compliance and that's Nintendo (who just start tracking you more if you're an EU citizen in say, the US.)

> I assume Apple will use the region choice at the start of configuring iOS to do the same thing.

Nope! New countryd process uses Apple ID address, course-level location/carrier country and device region to determine DMA region locking, unfortuantely.

If one thing's been clear though the Apple DMA stuff so far, it's that Apple will go to lengths to maintain their status quo in all aspects.

https://9to5mac.com/2023/04/25/ios-16-restrict-features-base...

https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/25/apple-check-iphone-eligible-s...

Why did I even think of offering them the potential of not doing it the most malicious way possible lmao.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's going to get smacked down - tying "requiring an Apple ID" to being able to exercise your rights doesn't seem like something the EU would be happy with, considering the GDPR 'n such.

Ever feeling bored and want to ignite an online all-out war? Comment that the GDPR doesn’t apply to someone living in the US and running a web server there. Once that firestorm is rolling, observe that people would lambaste the US if it claimed its laws applied everywhere.

(I genuinely believe both of those statements, and don’t mean either of them as trolling. Boy howdy, does it ever have the same end result though.)

> [...] GDPR doesn’t apply to someone living in the US and running a web server there.

Only if they ensure that they have no EU-based users [0]. So yeah, unless you actively block "data subjects who are in the Union", it does apply to someone living in and running a server in the US. It's part of what makes GDPR so great for us citizens, the beauty that is the Brussels effect.

[0] Article 3(2) of the GDPR

See? That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Imagine me saying a US law applies to someone in Prague because the US law said it did. I’d be rightfully laughed at.

For any of the US laws that are drafted in such a manner that they apply to US citizens outside the states, DC and the territories? At least not by me or anyone else who understand extraterritoriality.

No, you wouldn't be laughed at for stating that fact, nor would that be "rightful".

Those laws apply to US citizens. GDPR purports to apply to everyone around the globe. That's a substantial increase in scope.

I like the GDPR. For the most part, I think it's a good law. It has problems, like it's impossible to comply fully with GDPR and HIPAA at the same time, but I'm glad a major government is pushing so hard for something I support.

And yet I still give it the side-eye for claiming jurisdiction over non-EU citizens living and working in non-EU countries without having a realworld presence in the EU.

> Those laws apply to US citizens. GDPR purports to apply to everyone around the globe.

No, not to "everyone", only processors handling data that is covered as part of GDPR, which again, you are free to exclude if you desire.

So, to stay with US laws, what about, as one of a few examples, FATCA [0] in the case of US citizens being served by, e.g., EU financial institutions? Very much comparable to GDPR and non-EU processors handling data covered by GDPR. Both apply outside their government of origin for processors handling something connected to the government's citizenry, and both do not "apply to everyone around the globe"; simply don't handle US financials/EU data.

Again, GDPR is not unique in regard to extraterritoriality, nor is this something only the EU engages in. It is accepted, established and has been part of US legislation for an extended period prior to GDPR. And, just like with GDPR, FATCA applying beyond US based institutions is a positive attribute of that legislation, neither would work if only applicable within their respective territory.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1471 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1472 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1473 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1474

> Imagine me saying a US law applies to someone in Prague because the US law said it did. I’d be rightfully laughed at.

That happens all the time. E.g., US tax laws.

Why? That's already the case: US law applies to US citizens and there are already some laws that are extraterritorial and impose burdens that companies in other countries must comply with.

For instance, financial institutions in Europe have special reporting and KYC requirements for the accounts of American citizens, even if they're long-term residents in European countries and dual-citizens, because of FATCA.

Extraterritoriality is not unique to the GDPR and the EU, nor is it new.

> financial institutions in Europe have special reporting and KYC requirements for the accounts of American citizens,

Usually they just straight up ban americans from registering banking services.

That shift happened after the huge fine they got because of that.

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The EU has zero jurisdiction in the US and no treaty covering GDPR. The US is not extraditing Americans to the EU for violating the GDPR, anymore than it is for violating EU, Chinese or Russian censorship laws. If the EU wants to setup their own Great Firewall and block off America that's their right, but absent a treaty and domestic implementation their laws are not our problem. No different from anywhere else. If the EU wanted to prosecute an American for it then sure said American should not travel to the EU ever but that's easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com