Ask HN: Supreme Court sales tax ruling GDPR implications?
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.
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.
With no physical presence, there was a good chance US courts would find you did not a "nexus" with the foreign state, meaning that they do not have personal jurisdiction.
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.
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?
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.
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.
[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-619-6072