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."

Comments

Maybe but that isn't the point

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Maybe but that isn't the point

[jonbryce]

One of the companies is Vodafone, who own 45% of Verizon, so there are plenty of US assets to get hold of.

Re:Maybe but that isn't the point

[cbope]

Should the US be using international trade sanctions to enforce its own laws in other countries?

Too late, the US has been doing this for some time. How do you think the rash of DMCA-like laws have been forced on other countries in recent years? Where I live, file sharing of even of copyrighted works among friends was not illegal (no profit motive) until the US forced DMCA-like laws to be adopted by our government. It was surely not the population who voted this into law and made a large percentage of the population criminal overnight. As an American ex-pat living abroad, this brings me no small amount of shame.

Re:Maybe but that isn't the point

[thej1nx]

Well USA has been enforcing its laws, demands, fancies on other countries for plenty of time. As per new American vision, national sovereignty of other countries means zilch. American citizens can go and illegally spy in other countries, murder innocents and can get accorded diplomatic immunity after the fact and officially get away by throwing some cash around.

Even diplomatic immunity and Geneva convention is being abandoned. Torture is acceptable. Diplomats and their families can be strip-searched, arrested and humiliated if US thinks that there will be no retaliation. Here is just the latest example :
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/diplo_daughter_keyed_up_kgp3ZqKcEx9nVwPoD9g0aM

Apparently American murderers and rapists(check out Okinawa American base in Japan) can get away scott-free, while US authorities decide as per need, whether diplomatic immunity laws do or do not apply, irrespective of International laws and norms.

Mod me flamebait or troll, if you will. But USA has *always* had a superiority complex and believes even its murderers and rapists are sacrosanct. Even in rare cases, when they allowed prosecution, some kind of deal for a compromise has always been worked out. Only place where US chooses to comply to the international laws is where it feels there is a lot at risk or if it can get its ass royally kicked(i.e. in China for example, where USA military might means naught).

And yep, thanks to the internet and US-propelled globalisation, everyone has US assets or eventually will. Paypal happily freezes accounts of whoever the USA government does not likes. Everyone has a Visa or MasterCard these days. And with US based banks operating in almost all the countries, similar pressure can get eventually employed to force the foreign branches of say Citibank to freeze even accounts that are not in USA. It totally depends on whether or not, your government can stand up to the USA.

Re:Maybe but that isn't the point

[Attila Dimedici]

You know you post this as if this is unique to the U.S.. The only difference between the U.S. doing this and most other countries is that the U.S. is able to make it stick in more places than most other countries.

They can

[cappp]

As provided by TFA, the Alien’s Action for Tort is the relevent statute and states

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

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.

Re:They can

[cappp]

Obtaining justice in their own system is likely to be really, really hard. I don't know for certain but I would imagine that in Egyptian Law the telecom companies would be able to successfully argue that they were merely following governmental orders, and the government will claim some kind of perogative to act - probably grounded in some kind of martial law rights. The problem is that the law as it stood both reflected and enable a specifically ordered power structure - the law would give deference to the government in many areas.

So you're stuck with the hope that the law would be adapted, a process that takes a lot of time and negotiation, and protections for civil society added. Problem - a lot of states forbid ex post facto prosecution. Egypt is a signatory to the Arab Charter on Human Rights which specifically states that

o crime and no penalty can be established without a prior provision of the law. In all circumstances, the law most favorable to the defendant shall be applied.

. So the only option is likely to be appeals to international courts. Using the courts as they stand in Egypt is likely to be futile at present, and in the future they'll be unable to claim for injuries suffered prior to the adoption of new laws. It's a difficult situation to be in.

Moreover, there's a lot of reasons to make an international case here - and most of them are rooted in good ol' money and politics.

Re:They can

[Digital Vomit]

Obtaining justice in their own system is likely to be really, really hard

And that differs from the American system how?

Of course they can...

[muffen]

Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?

Blah.

[DNS-and-BIND]

This is just "activists" taking the easiest path instead of a path that's actually challenging. It's easy to sue anyone in America, and the insane American legal system is feared worldwide.

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?

Re:Blah.

[pinkushun]

There is a bigger picture involved.

During the Egyptian revolution the telecom companies, instead of supporting the people, complied with and acted upon the requests of a tyrannical leader to shut down internet access, in an attempt to silence the people. [1]

They also complied to send out pro-government, anti-democracy [2] mobile text messages [3].

Don't buy Vodafone's excuse, they abide to a mad man's "emergency laws", while the people and journalists risked life and limb to have their voice heard. Vodafone agreed to his terms, a guy who is now facing the death penalty under charge or premeditated murder against civilians[5], and need to grow a pair.

And do you know why?
"Its not clear who paid for the messages which could amount to hundred of thousands of dollars worth of messaging."

[1] http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011128796164380.html
[2] http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=133349
[3] http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/02/03/unsolicited-pro-mubarak-text-messages-from-egypt/
[4] http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml
[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/us-egypt-mubarak-idUSTRE74N3LG20110524

Re:Connected

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not really, in a lot of European countries you can get prosecuted for having sex with a minor overseas, altough:
1) It's an act commited overseas.
2) The effects of the act stay overseas.
3) The act itself might not have been illegal overseas*

(* If you come from a country that 18 as "age of consent" you're still not allowed to have a sex with a 14 year old even if in that country the "age of consent" would be 14)

So, the rules are not entirely ridiculous.
As a citizen you're supposed to follow the rules of AND your own country AND the country you visit, whichever is more restrictive. That also goes for companies with overseas departments (which is the claim in this case)

You are a spiv

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Connected

[stiggle]

There is an international criminal court - just the US hasn't signed up to it and during the Bush presidency threatened violence to anyone who pulls a US citizen in front of the court.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court