Hacker News Reader

Comment by ranger_danger | Hacker News Reader

How is this enforceable if a company does not physically operate in any capacity in that state? The worst I thought could happen is local ISPs might block the site, but otherwise why shut it off yourselves?

I didn't think one state could compel a business in another state to do anything whatsoever.

View on HN

The rules for online businesses usually do not need you to operate physically in a state. For example, CCPA in California, is enforceable if you buy/sell/share personal information of California residents and generate revenue from it, even if your business is not in California physically. You can be sued and the state will pursue fines if you are in violation of the law.

Similarly, even if Pornhub doesn't operate physically in Texas, if they make money off of users residing in Texas, you are "conducting business" in Texas and therefore the laws are applicable to you as any other business.

The concept is known as "minimum contacts".

Wouldn't it be better to just stop accepting payments from Texas instead of blocking the site for them entirely?

I assume this would be more complex than that. Logging (storing personal data), ad revenue from viewers in TX, etc could easily make this a much larger task than the revenue is worth. Even if those were done, you’re then serving content to an entire state completely for free, which makes no business sense.

Ad revenue would be the problem.

> You can be sued

Not if your business isn't registered in that state. Just because you acquired personal information from CA residents doesn't mean they gave it to you directly.

> The CCPA applies to businesses that “collect” or “sell”[1] personal information of California residents and that meet one of the three statutory thresholds described below, even if they are not organized under California law and even if they have no physical presence in California.

https://www.thsh.com/publications/what-businesses-outside-ca....

So California claims. Show me a case against a non-California entity.

I think a burden of proof lies on you if you believe California's claims are wrong. Show me a case when such a case was thrown out.

The bigger question is can they catch you.

In terms of jurisdiction: Texas would have specific jurisdiction due to business activities in the state. (See also "minimum contacts" and "long arm judgement.")

As far as enforceability:

* There is extradition for criminal offenses. (In practice, usually only for felonies.)

* Texas can prohibit its residents/businesses from doing business with companies with judgments render against them.

* Texas can issue warrants and then arrest violators if they step into the state.

---

States very often restrict goods/services sold in their state. Like, you can't sell a gun to a buyer in California, without going through a 10-day waiting period, even if you do not live in California and comply with federal regulations.

They can't prevent buying outside of California to someone who lives in California if their state/country laws allow it. California could setup roadblocks and search everyone to contraband.

That is correct.

California cannot prevent someone in Arizona (even if they are a permanent resident of California) from buying a firearm from someone in Arizona.

California can prevent someone in California from possessing a firearm (insomuch as federal/constitutional law allows).

I have been curious about this myself, I am wondering if it could have something to do with collecting money in the state?

Maybe they could still just be sued in Texas regardless of whether or not they are there.

Online gambling is an example of an industry with state-specific bans [0], [1]. Not sure how well these work in practice though.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States#...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enf...

It works quite well in practice, as KYC (know your customer) is in order for every state that has legalized it. Typically, a government-issued id#, SSN (last 4), and perhaps a license photo or selfie are required to open an account.

Pornhub tries to keep their brand positioned inside the law and away from politics so that they can retain dominance of any legal market for online porn and serve porn consumers of all political stripes. They're relatively risk-averse, avoiding insult and heated political confrontation over stuff like this.

Even if there wasn't a sure enforcement method, they're not the company that would risk court drama to find out.

It may not be enforceable but it probably isn't worth the legal risk especially if any of your employees might ever want to travel to that state. Same reason why you wouldn't want to be running a web site that's openly defying European law if you might want to visit the EU someday.

As mentioned in the article, Pornhub isn't literally blocked, rather they're serving a page containing a statement protesting Texas' law along with a request for users to contact their representatives, to any Texas IP.

> How is this enforceable if a company does not physically operate in any capacity in that state?

Enforce what? Texas took no step to block them.

> Pornhub Disables Website in Texas Over Age-Verification Law

Pornhub blocked themselves in Texas. It's like all these US sites preventing EU users from visiting them, just because they don't want to be GDPR compliant.

> Enforce what? Texas took no step to block them.

The government takes no steps to prevent lots of law infractions, that doesn't mean they won't punish you for not adhering. As is the nature of laws.

> Pornhub blocked themselves in Texas. It's like all these US sites preventing EU users from visiting them, just because they don't want to be GDPR compliant.

Yes, preventing yourself from breaking a law is generally wise. What point do you believe you're making in these comments?

> Enforce what?

Age verification for site visitors...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com