←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
WUMBOWUMBO ◴[] No.45044734[source]
Clueless human, but what stops a company from ignoring these laws from certain states? How is this enforceable if a company doesn't have any infrastructure within that state?
replies(5): >>45044771 #>>45044813 #>>45045074 #>>45045223 #>>45045523 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.45045223[source]
> Clueless human, but what stops a company from ignoring these laws from certain states?

The threat of lawsuits.

> How is this enforceable if a company doesn't have any infrastructure within that state?

If you are intentionally doing business in a US state, and either you or your assets are within the reach of courts in the US, you can probably be sued under the state's laws, either in the state's courts or in federal courts, and there is a reasonable chance that if the law is valid at all, it will be applied to your provision of your service to people in that state. Likewise, you have a risk from criminal laws of the state if you are personally within reach of any US law enforcement, through intrastate extradition (which, while there is occasional high-profile resistance, is generally Constitutionally mandatory and can be compelled by the federal courts.)

That's why services taking reasonable steps to cut off customers accessing their service from the states whose laws they don't want to deal with is a common response.

replies(1): >>45046755 #
BobaFloutist ◴[] No.45046755[source]
That sounds a lot like regulating cross-state commerce, which is traditionally the purview of the federal government. Not that I have any real faith in this particular federal government or Supreme Court jealously protecting federal supremacy in this particular case.
replies(1): >>45048494 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45048494[source]
> That sounds a lot like regulating cross-state commerce, which is traditionally the purview of the federal government.

Except for very specific things that are forbidden to the states in Art. I Sec. 10, or where Congress has specifically closed off state action in its own actions under the Interstate Commerce Clause, states retain the ability to regulate commerce in manners that impact interstate commerce so long as they do not discriminate against interestate commerce compared to in-state commerce in such regulations.