Simple, block the EU, problem solved.
If you're seen (by EU courts) to be soliciting business from the EU (which could just mean running advertising that appears in the EU), you're subject to the laws.
So, blocking EU traffic to avoid being seen as doing business there may be a prudent step in some cases.
https://www.gdprandbeyond.com/blog-post/data-privacy/gdpr-af...
I don't like it any more than you do.
But the fact remains that it's not that simple.
If you have a small website, you're not even a target. Unless you're selling personal data.
Not remotely true; the vast majority of US citizens never leave the US.
2. One of the Supervisory Authorities fines you
3. The SA applies to a court in the EU for an order compelling payment of the fine
4. The SA applies to a US court for enforcement of the EU judgment
5. You have to pay up
Debt jail is illegal in Europe.
> the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world.
You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty for a global sovereign with geographically-bounded subordinate jurisdictions that may have broad discretion but which face mandatory constraints designed to optimize what you see as the desirable function of the world system. Which is a perfectly legitimate view, but you shouldn't confuse it with the idea of national sovereignty, to which it radically opposed.
> You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty
Uh, no, try reading that again, I implied no such thing.
Well, someone is; specifically, you are confused on what “sovereignty” means, and are confusing it for having limitations which are directly contrary to what it means. What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty” is instead radically opposed to it (though it would be consistent withstand global sovereign imposing particular limits on a geographically-bounded subordinates.)
> You seem to want to abandon the idea of national sovereignty for a global sovereign with geographically-bounded subordinate jurisdictions
No I don't, nor did I say or imply that.
> “National sovereignty” is exactly the idea that every state has only the constraints imposed either by it's physical power and behavioral constraints it voluntarily (and revocable) imposes on itself.
Correct and I'm well aware of that, and I used it with exactly that meaning. So your response to that comment simply doesn't make sense. Watch...
> What you claim is demanded by “national sovereignty”
Which is the point I was making, I'm in support of national sovereignty; if you think I've implied otherwise, you've misread something.
> is instead radically opposed to it
You seem to have not understood what I claimed, but I assure you it's not opposed to national soverenty, here I'll add context to my original statement which I think you misread or understood.
>> (OP)What is the mechanism by which step 4 is accomplished
> There isn't one;
I'm telling OP step 4 doesn't exist yet; the US courts don't just accept and execute the judgement of foreign courts. Certainly not in cases where said actions are perfectly legal in the US.
> that's the point these GDPR supporters aren't comprehending, national sovereignty is a thing
I'm saying the people supporting the GDPR don't seem to understand it's a violation of national sovereignty for the EU to be able prosecute non-EU citizens for crimes that are only crimes in the EU when said citizens are not subjects of the EU. I'm subject to the laws of the US only, not the EU's laws. We have treaties that allow such prosecutions in cases where said behavior is a crime in both countries, but that doesn't apply in the case of the GDPR.
> the world cannot function if every country can impose its laws on every citizen in the world.
Saying nations are sovereign, that's how the world works. That's what a nation "is".
The US courts says fuck off, you don't have jurisdiction over our citizens. That's what's going to happen; lets stop pretending there's any actual legal right for the EU to impose laws on non EU citizens, there isn't.
Your personal interpretation of the situation is irrelevant.