
Ask HN: Supreme Court sales tax ruling GDPR implications? - tzs
Note: not seeking legal advice. I noticed that two subjects that have been discussed here may have some intersection, and want to see what people&#x27;s thoughts are.<p>Often when GDPR is discussed here there is a sub-discussion over whether or not the EU can actually enforce it if you do not have an EU presence or any assets they can reach.<p>The US often will allow foreign judgments to be enforced in the US [1], if the US agrees that the foreign court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and that you had notice and the opportunity to defend yourself.<p>With no physical presence, there was a good chance US courts would find you did not a &quot;nexus&quot; with the foreign state, meaning that they do not have personal jurisdiction.<p>But late last week, in SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC., ET AL., the Court overturned its earlier precedent and decided that doing online business in a state that you have no presence in can be enough to establish a nexus. The exact parameters of this are yet to be determined, other than it will probably require that the revenue or number of transactions you do in the state must be above some threshold to establish a nexus.<p>Will this loosened standard for what can establish a nexus only apply to taxes between states, or is this the new standard for all inquiries a to the existence of a nexus? If so, does that mean it will now be easier to establish that a foreign court had personal jurisdiction, and so easier to get foreign judgments enforced in the US?<p>There are some categorical limits on foreign judgments. For example tax and penal judgments will not be enforced by US courts. I do not know if GDPR fines fall under any of the forbidden categories.<p>If they do, a US GDPR transgressor still might not be safe, because GDPR also allows the data subjects themselves to sue for compensation, and foreign judgments for compensation are usually allowable I believe.<p>[1] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com&#x2F;0-619-6072
======
tzs
Meta: HN cannot count. The original version [1] of this question was 2907
characters long, exceeding the 2000 character limit for text posts. I edited
it down to 1993 characters [2] and it still was rejected for being over 2000
characters.

The present version is 1971 characters. My first guess was that maybe the
length of the title is being counted too, but this version plus the title is
2029 and was obviously accepted.

[1] [https://pastebin.com/sDrZjAv8](https://pastebin.com/sDrZjAv8)

[2] [https://pastebin.com/jh10V0UX](https://pastebin.com/jh10V0UX)

~~~
LukeBMM
Looking at the API response[1] implies a bit of formatting being done on the
HN side. Maybe some of that is done before the limit.

The published version, with opening html paragraphs (except the first one, for
some reason) and with html entities translated back into single characters,
comes out to 1979 characters.

Your second link, formatted the same way, comes out to _exactly_ 2000
characters. The limit could potentially be strictly _less than_ 2000
characters. You may have been exactly one character off.

[1] [https://hacker-
news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/17388936.json?pri...](https://hacker-
news.firebaseio.com/v0/item/17388936.json?print=pretty)

------
mirimir
Well, US states and other nations are distinguishable, no?

