Forget all the stuff out there that says the GDPR protects EU citizens. This is a question of jurisdiction and enforcement. Say I run a blog under a business registered in the US funded by advertisers in the US. A EU citizen that comments on posts issues a GDPR request that I ignore. Their government fines me. I tell them to get bent, I am out of their jurisdiction. What can they do at that point?
redacted
Incorrect.
The current data agreement between the US and EU is neither a law nor a treaty. It is an executive order, which means it did not pass through Congress and simply reflects the policy of the current administration. Like any other executive order, it could be ignored or overturned by a subsequent administration.
Furthermore, it does not mean “GDPR is actually the law in the US”. It means that the current US administration will cooperate in enforcing certain privacy rights. It does not give EU citizens the same rights they have in the EU under the GDPR. For example, it does not allow private individuals to sue US companies for damages in US courts.
the other is for the US government to sign a treaty
Just to clarify here: it’s not just the act of signing it that makes it US law. The executive branch negotiates and signs a treaty, but the treaty then has to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the Senate in order to become law.
Just wanted to make it clear that there are still checks-and-balances on this process and that it’s not a loophole around Congressional approval.
Thank you, I learned something new today.
I am a US citizen, I know how our laws are made, and find the explanation a little condescending, but this is the best answer so far that there is a treaty about it. I couldn’t find that anywhere. Thanks.
redacted
“You read that condescension into it by yourself. You are asking a question and that is the answer I have no idea about your context.” That is fair. I hadn’t had my coffee and have been dealing with an unusually high amount of unpleasant individuals lately, hence the short fuse.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Dudes handle is literally neanderthal. To my knowledge the last neanderthals died out a long time ago and there are no direct descendants but go a head and warn me for ‘vocally harassing’ someone.
deleted by creator
No he didn’t. The context was “as a US citizen” per the post. You gave him a 6th grade civics lesson about how bills turn into laws a-la school house rock before even sort of addressing the question. The next step would’ve been explaining what laws even are.
That’s a little condescending, assuming a citizen of a nation doesn’t know how their own laws are created. It isn’t a LOT condescending but it is a little.
Speaking only for myself (another US citizen), I didn’t know treaties could cover things like that so I found it valuable.
And you are what… The random condescending inspector or what? Nowhere in the OP’s message did they convey they were familiar with the law making process. I found that particular answer the easiest to read. So there’s that. Even the OP agreed that they shouldn’t have reacted like that.
There is no treaty. And the GDPR is not “law” in the US. You cannot sue a company for damages in the US like in the EU.
However, there is an executive order that allows you to file a complaint if you think your privacy rights have been violated.
You can find a good explainer here.
Removed by mod
This is a good article on whether non-EU websites have to obey the GDPR. It boils down to two criteria:
If your business is offering goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the EU
or
If your business monitors the behavior of EU citizens and their behavior takes place within the union.
The latter includes use of advertising cookies, location tracking, etc.
If neither of those apply, you can probably ignore the GDPR.
That is an interesting article, but it doesn’t answer the question of jurisdiction because it refers to the GDPR itself. I.e. it doesn’t answer whether an EU country itself actually has the authority to enforce it on a US citizen. The US could pass a law that says a website operator must eat a dog turd every time anyone, anywhere, a website runs an ad that a US person sees. Say someone in Romania runs a site with ads and the US government wants to enforce this. The law could even state that it applies anywhere in the world, but that doesn’t make it so because the US does not have jurisdiction everywhere in the world. The Romanian government will rightly refuse to make their citizen eat the dog turd.
So the spirit of my question is, where is the stick to actually enforce anything on a US entity operating in the US under the GDPR? There is an agreement via an EO. Is there anything else in US law that could be used to enforce this if a US citizen refused an EU country trying to enforce the GDPR in the US? Using the text of it is NA because the EU can only do things that apply to EU countries and their citizens.
For those that aren’t familiar with how the US gov functions, an EO is not even remotely close to a treaty, which has the same supremacy as our constitution. All an EO does is tell federal employees or federal executive agencies what to do. Our president could issue an EO telling everyone in the US to wear yellow hats when not in a building and for the FBI to arrest anybody with a yellow hat. Those arrested would have charges dropped the second it reaches the court because such a law does not exist and it is outside the scope of power of the president. EOs can only act within already existing laws.
Then they block your site and prevent you ever doing business in one of the world’s largest markets. I’m not sure how liability works but the CEO may also be unable to travel to the EU also
There’s a treaty between us and EU.
So if you suspect a us entity violating your EU right aka gdpr you can make a complaint to your city’s data protection agency or directly via the EU complaints for cases outside your country ( inside and outside EU) They will take care of it and make sure that you don’t need to travel to another country for court stuff and more ( if needed in most cases you don’t)
Usually it gets regulated in a way that you can go to a court in your city and the enemy in his city.
So all in all the us wants the EU market and vice versa so both agreed to a treaty to honor the rules of each other
More info google
Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework
The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (and subsequent executive orders) protect the EU citizens from misuse of their data by US law enforcement and intelligence communities.
They do not give EU citizens any rights concerning data held only by private companies, apart from the rights all Americans already have.
Nope, not according to the US state department:
https://www.state.gov/treaties-in-force/
I looked, couldn’t find it.
Badly researched my dude before you try to make it look like facts do more than a Google search of a minute
Google “Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework”
That’s the one that honors gdpr and EU rights
It isn’t a treaty, even according the EU:
It is implemented via executive order which courts don’t have to honor. All it means is LE agencies have to take action. Courts are free to ignore the EO and dismiss any charges or civil suits. A treaty is a different story.
Yeah I’m that case nothing can be done but say your site had a European operation that would be be covered under GDPR and the US parent would likely pay the fine to continue their operations on the continent
Maybe you’d care to read this https://allaboutcookies.org/how-to-avoid-gdpr-fines
This is why a lot of US sites block EU residents , it’s easier than being compliant and if you’re a US focused site it makes sense.
That’s why I use a VPN when using links from Reddit as many news sites are blocked .
I’ve read that, it just says more fines. Say I ignore them, now what?
This might help:
Pretty much nothing if it’s digital services with no goods or payments in the EU.(unless the eu puts pressure on the 3rd countries government)
That agreement concerns use of EU data by the US government itself (ie the intelligence community and law enforcement).
It does not give EU citizens any opportunity to enforce claims against US companies in US courts.
Based on your replies to other comments, it seems you don’t see how the GDPR, or GDPR fines, could have any effect on US companies.
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/
Sort the list by fines, and you find US companies paying whopping amounts. Many affect their EU presence (such as Meta Platforms Ireland Limited), but others don’t (such as Meta Platforms, Inc.).
Ask yourself if these giants were just too nice to give in, or if they were too poor to hire a lawyer.
If you think both options are unrealistic, maybe the GDPR does have an effect even on US companies.
I think the largest assumption you are making is that the OP does business with the EU. If they do not, they are truly out of the jurisdiction of GDPR and wouldn’t be finding themselves on that list. Those fines you are referring to a multinational corps that definitely do a lot of business within the EU.
the largest assumption you are making is that the OP does business with the EU. If they do not, they are truly out of the jurisdiction of GDPR
GDPR applies to American enterprises if they process personal data of EU citizens.
If you serve a website which is accessible to EU citizens, and that site collects personal data or allows users to enter personal data, GDPR most probably applies to you. IANAL.
True, but it’s important to note that personal data means identifiers such as name, date of birth, location, etc. Comments on a blog, by themselves, are not personal data.
