[knaekhoved]

My question as well. Can a non-EU company simply refuse to pay, and also refuse to block users from the EU? I wonder if the EU would decide to block access to the foreign service as a result. It would at least force them to be honest about the fact that they're effectively turning the internet into a legal-regional network rather than a global one.

[oblio]

> It would at least force them to be honest about the fact that they're effectively turning the internet into a legal-regional network rather than a global one.

This happened a long time ago. And it was started by the US, I'm quite sure.

More than that, the American way to manage the "global network" is basically to impose US laws everywhere in the world.

You can receive DMCA notices outside the US, for example.

Or even crazier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd.

Someone arrested, in the US, for a "crime" in another country, that wasn't even a crime in his country.

[swores]

> The case raised some concerns of civil rights and legal process in the United States, and ended in the charges against Sklyarov dropped and Elcomsoft ruled not guilty under the applicable jurisdiction.

So it's an example of "law enforcement can and sometimes do illegally attest / cause other issues unfairly", but not really a good example of a law being imposed outside the country which made that law.