Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

reading further down that page...

"We retain a law firm in the UK to consult on EU privacy issues."

wouldn't it be better to retain a law firm that's actually in the EU? hiring a UK law firm for EU matters is no different that hiring a US law firm, or AUS, or whatever non-EU country

View on HN

While that is true in the sense that the UK is no longer in the EU, I don't believe UK law has yet diverged from EU law on any relevant privacy issues, so UK firms would still have significant experience in this area. A firm within the EU would be a better choice, I agree.

Also, a lot of international companies will just retain an international law firm headquartered in the UK for everything. That law firm will have offices all over the world, including in several EU jurisdictions, that they will outsource to when necessary to advise on EU legal issues.

The UK is subject to the UK GDPR, which has no material differences to the EU GDPR. There are probably some other differences, but the UK is much better than USA or Australia etc. (Although I'm surprised there aren't USA-based law firms which specialise in European privacy laws, because of their impact on tech companies)

yeah, but the people that work with the UK law firm probably go to the UK to have meetings just so they can update their out-of-office replies with "i'll be away for meetings in the UK for...blahblahblah" just so they look cooler than the schmucks that have meetings across town. so that's why they choose non-local talent, just for their egos.

or, maybe i'm confusing them with ad agency types that i've worked with in the past and i'm just projecting one ego industry to another?

You're saying they choose a UK law firm bc it "looks cooler" to travel on a plane to the UK? Am I reading this right

Or they've worked with them for more than four years, before the UK left the EU.

You feeling okay?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com