| ▲ | MrZander 7 hours ago |
| Out of curiosity, does anyone know how this is enforceable for a company not based in California? Can CA fine a data broker that is based in another state but that is selling CA residents' information? |
|
| ▲ | Xorakios 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes; the nexus for legal purposes is generally the location of the user, not the broker |
|
| ▲ | connicpu 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The company would have to not have any interstate presence at all. If you are a business based in the united states that has customers in California, you are easily reachable under California law. |
| |
| ▲ | metalcrow 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Curious, how so? | | |
| ▲ | teraflop 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Look up "long arm statutes". State courts can have jurisdiction over out-of-state entities, subject to limitations established by federal precedent. Doing business with customers who reside in a state generally puts you under that state's jurisdiction, at least for purposes related to that business. | | |
| ▲ | what 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Define “doing business”. If no money is exchanged, how are you “doing business” with them? | | |
| ▲ | dredmorbius 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From another California regulation (requiring telemarketers to register and secure a bond): A seller is deemed to be doing business in the state if the seller solicits prospective purchasers from locations in California or solicits prospective purchasers who are located in this state.' <https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg> The DROP act creates a right to California residents. To the extent I've read the statute, it doesn't define what entities are covered (see: <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...>), which seems to me to suggest that affected entities are defined by their data collection from California residents, not where or how they engage in activities otherwise in California. | |
| ▲ | braiamp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doing business is doing business, money isn't necessary to "do business". If you hold any interest and that person has any relationship with you in a way that can be inferred that a contract is implied, then that's business. That's why travel to get an "agreement" is considered a business expense, even if the agreement never materialize. | | |
| ▲ | what 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > doing business is doing business That’s not much of a definition. | | |
| |
| ▲ | connicpu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you've collected data on a California resident with the intent to profit from its sale then you're doing some type of business with respect to California | |
| ▲ | edmundsauto 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m not sure the definition matters here. Either you are doing business and this regulation makes certain things now illegal; or you are not doing business and it’s unsolicited and spam. |
|
| |
| ▲ | newsomix9xl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Comity iirc is the legal principle of mutually recognizing other states laws (giving them jurisdiction) as in recognizing a marriage contract in other states (and they recognize yours). That's my guess |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ransom1538 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. We talk to our lawyers here in FL. We take the legal document from CA and throw them in the garbage while laughing is the current policy. |
| |
| ▲ | vvbull 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This feels like bloviating. You are unlikely to be subject to this law, and even if you were your lawyers probably wouldn't advise you to ignore laws in states where you operate. (If you don't operate in California or on California residents, then you are obviously not subject to this law.) And you're lawyers would definitely not recommend posting publicly that you plan to willfully break this law. Which suggests to me that you are just blowing hot air online. |
|
|
| ▲ | hackernud3s 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
