It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.
You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.
Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.
There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:
In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.
If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU’s demands.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
It’s more like “getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it”. Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn’t undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.
I don’t know why you’re acting like this is such a strange thing.
Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren’t allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.
“The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so.” <-- This is what’s strange, and new.
Companies supplying companies - it’s an order of magnitude beyond the targets of the sanctions.
It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.
I’m all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn’t breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.
No, it’s not new or strange. It’s a normal component of sanctions, and it’s fundamentally how they’re implemented. Otherwise you could circumvent them by setting up two companies.
It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.
It’s pretty easy to predict. Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you’ll be impacted. Easy enough.
I’m all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn’t breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.
Are you under the impression that Microsoft is being punished in any way? They aren’t, they’re simply not allowed to do business with companies acting against sanctions if they want to keep doing business in the EU.
Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you’ll be impacted. Easy enough.
Microsoft isn’t doing business with a sanctioned country in this case. That, yet again, is my point. You keep conflating Microsoft with the company actually breaching the EU sanctions.
Microsoft are absolutely being punished - they were forced to make choice between “doing business in the EU” (what exactly the EU threatened is unclear to me) or losing the contract value, plus whatever they may incur in damages though breach of contract.
They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.
You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.
Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.
There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:
If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU’s demands.
It’s more like “getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it”. Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn’t undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.
Nayara were the ones operating/supplying a sanctioned country, not Microsoft, so what legal basis could the EU have against Microsoft?
I don’t know why you’re acting like this is such a strange thing.
Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren’t allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.
“The EU doesn’t want companies supplying companies that do so.” <-- This is what’s strange, and new.
Companies supplying companies - it’s an order of magnitude beyond the targets of the sanctions.
It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.
I’m all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn’t breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.
No, it’s not new or strange. It’s a normal component of sanctions, and it’s fundamentally how they’re implemented. Otherwise you could circumvent them by setting up two companies.
It’s pretty easy to predict. Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you’ll be impacted. Easy enough.
Are you under the impression that Microsoft is being punished in any way? They aren’t, they’re simply not allowed to do business with companies acting against sanctions if they want to keep doing business in the EU.
Microsoft isn’t doing business with a sanctioned country in this case. That, yet again, is my point. You keep conflating Microsoft with the company actually breaching the EU sanctions.
Microsoft are absolutely being punished - they were forced to make choice between “doing business in the EU” (what exactly the EU threatened is unclear to me) or losing the contract value, plus whatever they may incur in damages though breach of contract.
Then please explain to me one simple thing - how do you implement sanctions when they can be circumvented by setting up a single company?