"Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark applauded the decision, saying it affirms 'that companies that choose to do business in Vermont, like Meta, can be held accountable when they harm kids.'"
THEY DIDN'T DO BUSINESS IN YOUR F'ING STATE! That was the entire f'ing argument you moron.
If you can't handle that there are people interacting with "your" citizens ... well stuff it. But the point is you DO NOT HAVE WORLD WIDE JURISDICTION!
All that is going to happen is your going to push companies like this OUT of the US where a non-US government won't cooperate with your illegal claim of jurisdiction. When courts issue rulings and there is no jurisdiction (no bank accounts, employees, offices, etc) those who get the ruling have no ability to enforce it.
For example if I have a ruling that says joe smo owes me a million dollars in the United States and joe smo lives in Russia and operates a site out of Russia with a .ru domain and has no hosting, domain registration, bank accounts, etc in the United States there is nothing upon which to enforce that judgement. I can't take that order to a US bank and get them to hand over proceeds from a bank account that doesn't exist within the United States. I also can't take that court ruling to a Russian bank and get that order enforced because the Russian bank isn't going to recognize a US court order.
What is dangerous here is that a state while supposedly sovereign is not entirely sovereign. It's much more likely that Vermont will be able to enforce a judgement from a Vermont court against a foreign corporation that operates in another US state due to reciprocity or something akin to it.
Reciprocity is the principle of the exchange of rights between states. California may recognize Vermont's order.
THEY DIDN'T DO BUSINESS IN YOUR F'ING STATE! That was the entire f'ing argument you moron.
If you can't handle that there are people interacting with "your" citizens ... well stuff it. But the point is you DO NOT HAVE WORLD WIDE JURISDICTION!
All that is going to happen is your going to push companies like this OUT of the US where a non-US government won't cooperate with your illegal claim of jurisdiction. When courts issue rulings and there is no jurisdiction (no bank accounts, employees, offices, etc) those who get the ruling have no ability to enforce it.
For example if I have a ruling that says joe smo owes me a million dollars in the United States and joe smo lives in Russia and operates a site out of Russia with a .ru domain and has no hosting, domain registration, bank accounts, etc in the United States there is nothing upon which to enforce that judgement. I can't take that order to a US bank and get them to hand over proceeds from a bank account that doesn't exist within the United States. I also can't take that court ruling to a Russian bank and get that order enforced because the Russian bank isn't going to recognize a US court order.
What is dangerous here is that a state while supposedly sovereign is not entirely sovereign. It's much more likely that Vermont will be able to enforce a judgement from a Vermont court against a foreign corporation that operates in another US state due to reciprocity or something akin to it.
Reciprocity is the principle of the exchange of rights between states. California may recognize Vermont's order.
1
