Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jasonfarnon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jasonfarnon

[flagged]

View on HN

> Of course it has business operations in TX.

It does not, as explicitly stated in the court's decision found here[0].

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

You're going to have give us the "explicit" quotation, because that link is to a decision in favor of the state.

Two quotes from the writ filed support my position.

  The court finds that the following domain name is
  owned by Defendant ...

  Defendant is not a resident of this state and is
  a foreign corporation.

> You're going to have give us the "explicit" quotation ...

The aforementioned does so. Until and unless you can show how the Defendant has an established presence within the State of Texas, such that its jurisdiction is applicable, it is difficult for me to consider your position considered and/or informed.

> You're going to have give us

To be fair, only some of "us" are unwilling to read a two-page document to be informed about a topic under discussion. The words you're looking for are "Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation."

Nice try, that's not the same as not doing business in the state. Most businesses are incorporated in Delaware, they get sued in every state of the union.

> Nice try, that's not the same as not doing business in the state.

Again, until and unless you can show how the Defendant has an established presence within the State of Texas, such that its jurisdiction is applicable, it is difficult to consider your position considered and/or informed.

It is known to have servers, offices, employees, bank accounts, business licenses in texas?

Motherless.xxx's tracepath is: https://ipinfo.io/185.107.81.233

Hosting out of the netherlands. Kick their owners are globally headquarted in Australia, their US operations are out of SFO, CA.

Why do you think that is necessary for jurisdiction? It's doing business with TX customers every time it serves an ad to someone there. The law governing sufficient contacts for internet companies has been pretty well established since the 2000s.

> It's doing business with TX customers every time it serves an ad to someone there

By this same logic if my web server physically located in Canada, the USA or Iceland serves LGBTQ content to people in Uganda I should be held liable or dragged into a Ugandan court under some of Uganda's anti-LGBTQ laws?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=uganda+an...

Uganda would certainly issue a judgement against you. The difference would be their inability to enforce it because none of the relevant parts of the DNS operate in Uganda.

It's now well-established on the Internet that a court may force anyone in the path to enforce their decision. ISPs are regularly forced to block foreign websites, without any implication of liability on the ISP's part, simply because the ISP has the technical ability to block them and the court has the ability to enforce an order on the ISP. This is the case when Spanish ISPs have to block Cloudflare. The same applies to the DNS, which is based in America. Thanks to Texas for publicizing this DNS vulnerability which must urgently be fixed.

I'm not sure what your point is. Courts generally follow precedent, not your opinion about what is or isn't logical. Do you want me to explain to you the nature of extraterritorial jurisdiction, extradition treaties, etc., distinguishing your hypothetical from this case? I don't have a dog in this fight. If you really want to understand what's going on I would suggest you simply look up the complaint this AG filed, which will give the basis for jurisdiction, which the court evidently accepted.

There's also more than ample legal precedent that only the US federal government has the authority to regulate inter-state commerce, which is clearly what .COM is as an entity run by VeriSign, and internet traffic/telecommunications traffic that crosses state borders. There's such a vast body of law in telecom law that the federal government regulates long distance telecommunications traffic that I could paste citations to dozens of court cases going back 75 years. International internet traffic from an entity whose servers aren't in Texas isn't subject to Texas jurisdiction.

> International internet traffic from an entity whose servers aren't in Texas isn't subject to Texas jurisdiction.

Besides the United States Constitution entirely invalidating this argument:

Does Verisign sell and/or provide services to Texans?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com