Slashdot Mirror
Can Egypt's Telecom Giants Be Sued In the US?
bedouin writes "In April, the Egyptian Centre for Housing Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of other plaintiffs against the three telecommunications companies (and a number of current and former Egyptian officials) seeking compensation for the damages they suffered due to the shutdown of communications. The case is ongoing. An interesting question is whether any of these companies could also be sued in US courts."
Let's say for the sake of argument that they could be sued in a US court. If the judgement goes against them how would it be enforced? It seems like the court would either have to go after their US assets or ask the government to use some kind of sanctions against Egypt to get the cash.
Let's say there are no US assets so the latter option is the only one available. Should the US be using international trade sanctions to enforce its own laws in other countries? Imagine the uproar if China decided to enforce some of its laws in the US with sanctions.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the US, you can file a suit against almost anybody. But that's not the same as actually winning it. If you have no legal standing or the suit does not involve a breach of US civil law, then you can lose, even if the defendant does not bother to show up.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
As in the superinjunction furore regarding wether they can be sued in the USA for "laws" broken in the UK.
How about out of your jurisdiction. What is it with Americans that they think they need to police the world.
I can understand suing of Vodaphone or any of the parent companies. Suing for human rights violations, that I could somewhat agree with.
But seriously, loosing your phone and internet connectivity does not limit your freedom of speech in any way, in my not so humble opinion.
The idea that someone committing an act in one country, with effects within that country, can then be sued in another... it's patently ridiculous.
However we are clearly getting into a situation where the world is seriously interconnected (a good thing!) but legal codes and presumed jurisdictions overlap in all sorts of ways.
We either need an international legal code to sort this stuff out, or for countries to stop claiming jurisdiction outside of their own boundaries (except where it concerns actions perpetrated by their own citizens, with consequences to be faced when they return to their native soil)
There's some decent caselaw and precedent if anyone's intersted - Wiki has a little summary that shouldn't take too long to browse through. Long story short, it's certainly possible but there are some pretty high barriers to use (see specifically the ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [pdf]). It's a lot easier if its person on person, moreso if one of those is physically in the US, but it extends to corporations and non-residents as well.
Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?
It seems that people can be sued in the US when a win is easiest there, or sued in the UK over libel if there is chance that someone in the UK read it. What's next - someone suing a wife for adultery in an Iranian court because they want a death sentence!
Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Suppose you received a summons from the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengjiang County, China. A Chinese person is suing you because you supplied parts that were assembled into buses that police used to arrive at the scene of a civil disturbance, where the plaintiff was unlawfully injured (by unlawfully, I mean under Chinese law). Suing the local government is right out, so they sued you instead. What would you say to this? (A) Oh boy, this is serious, I had better go to this country, hire a lawyer, and spend a couple of months in-country fighting these charges to clear my name. (B) What the hell authority does some foreign court have over me? I've never been there and I'm never going there.
Oh, and if an American company had refused to comply with the cutoff order, it would be cultural imperialism and interfering with the internal affairs of another country. We can't impose our (false) values of "freedom" on other cultures, remember?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
As a non-US resident it seems from reports here on slashdot and other places, that anyone can be sued for anything in the US, regardless of merit, so I would not be at all surprised to see it happen.
US telecoms can't be sued in the US, what makes you think Egyptian ones can?
I would say no, you scum sucking money grabber. Trying to profit from a revolution in the third world by suing whats left in Egypt is pretty low.
You disgust me, you miserable (barely) human being.
Also, US citizens appear to escape whatever penalty (they are never extradited), while non-us citizens are hunted down in foreign countries. (And i'm not talking about Osama, who got what he bought).
Let this go through, and get it on record. As soon as the final gavel slams down; the U.S. companies that screwed the world will be under lawsuits all over the planet. Hopefully it is a country with extradition, so they can come get the U.S. CEOs and lock them up for their crimes against the world. I can't wait for the head of Goldman Sachs to get sent to a prison somewhere for what they did to the world economy.
Is there any other countries in the world where a seemingly large part of the citizens are arrogant enough to believe that their laws apply everywhere else in the world?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
which ones?
wind mobile (orascom) is in a battle with the crtc and the canadian government on whether they can continue to operate in canada...
honestly, what are they supposed to do? they get the OK to build the infrastructure, amass customers, but then robellus teams up and convinces the crtc that wind mobile can't operate here... talk about being anti-competitive. and what about the end users? are they supposed to go back to robellus?
Y would the usa get involved? It has nothing to do with them...
why do they think they can get involved in everybody elses business?
No Win No Fee Lawyers
Of course they can, the US do whatever they fucking want. It's as if the world is theirs to rule to them.
What should they have done? They've done wrong if they participated in interception for the regime, but I don't see what good ignoring an order to shut down would do. Vodafone doesn't have any soldiers; Mubarak could perfectly well have shut it down himself by cutting power or having their equipment blown up.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Pretty sure this would depend on of the person suing was an American who was directly affected by Egypt's telecoms. Then it would really only be enforcable if the company had a US presence. Otherwise, I imagine that the case would be dismissed.
suing a wife for adultery in an Iranian court because they want a death sentence!
Good idea !
Two words - Force Majeure - so that covers war, rioting, insurrection.
Secondly, a telecoms company in any country is obliged to follow the direction of the FCC or similar in their country. If they get a suspension order from the government, they have to suspend operation.
The Government of Egypt demanded a suspension of service, the telco's had no option but to suspend or be in violation of their license terms
... the US has been doing this for some time. How do you think the rash of DMCA-like laws
The example is quite an understatement of the time frame, too. Two words: "Cuba embargo". Five more: "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."
Egypt is no stranger to this. One of the first actions projecting US laws abroad, under Jefferson, was the military attack on the Barbary "Pirates" - who in turn had been acting as tax collectors enforcing a claim to sovereignty over the waters around the Straits of Gibraltar and a demand for tolls, individual or in block from the government of the ship's country of registry, for passage. (This is the origin of the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
us courts apply only to us citizens. there is an absolute reason why people from other countries are sent back home to face court. egypt has their own system, let them deal with it.
perhaps not.. but they can always be bombed :)
What's next - someone suing a wife for adultery in an Iranian court because they want a death sentence!
As I understand it, conviction for adultery under Islamic law requires several witnesses to the act.
Now I know there are people in the US who think that, if their wives had sex with someone else in front of an audience they'd deserve the death penalty ...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Those last two sentences should be included (along with a ton of other stuff) in an instruction booklet for companies operating in multiple nationalities.
"Why didn't you involve me in your porn production?"