Consider this pretty common scenario: company (or person) A, incorporated/residing in country X, provides online services all over the world. Technically, the services do not require any physical presence of A (or its property) outside X — international customers receive and pay for them online only, so there are no signs of A anywhere outside X apart from the Internet. For example: blogging platform, photo hosting, classifieds/advertisements directory etc.

Now, say B, someone in country Y (whether customer of A or not), files a lawsuit against A in a court of Y — grounded by the statement that A is providing services "in Y to the citizens of Y", and hence must obey all relevant laws of Y. Let's also say that A is indeed violating some laws of Y, or at least, would be doing so if A was from Y, although A is legally crystal clean it its home country X.

For simplicity, let's say the "world" in this question is the Western English-speaking world only, or, more specifically, these countries: UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

So, taking into account nowadays' international law, common practices, precedents etc.:

  1. How likely is it that the court in Y will rule out that A is violating the laws of Y — as opposed to deciding that it has no jurisdiction over A?
  2. In case the court of Y rules out against A, what sort of enforcement is likely to happen on A? If Y was, say, China or Russia, A could be simply blocked by their national firewalls. For the Western countries, would the measures be likely to involve prosecution of the owners/directors of A personally?
  • Please do not include codeblock for anything that is not code itself. Use emphasis or strong emphasis, or avoid unnecessary embellishments.
    – Nij
    May 31 '17 at 7:15

The courts in Y would decide if they have jurisdiction to hear the case: they almost certainly do. A would presumably petition the court that the courts of X are a better venue, B would argue "liar, liar, pants on fire". The court would then decide if they or a court in X should hear the case.

They would then decide if the contract is subject to the laws of X or Y. Given that A is presumably savvy enough to put in a choice of jurisdiction clause specifying X, the law of X probably applies.

The court would then look at what laws of Y apply that cannot be excluded by contract - those laws apply too. Many consumer protection laws fall into this category.

If B is successful in obtaining judgement, they would then take that to the court in X. A would argue it should be thrown out, B would argue it should be enforced. The court in X would decide which way to go. In general, courts will usually give effect to foreign jurisdictions unless doing so would offend local law specifically; not just if local law would give a different result.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.