Originally posted by R273613425
Once again more people who know nothing about law make broad claims lol
Firstly "international law" is something that only exists between nation states.
Is R2GAMES a sovereign state? no?
I didn't think so, therefore the entire concept of international law is not applicable.
Contract terms, that is to say terms of service in this case, are notoriously unenforceable.
Among such terms is the one you mention that they can only be sued in a court of their choosing.
In practice what actually happens, is that a subsidiary is the one being sued.
The location of the corporate headquarters is irrelevant.
R2GAMES actually has a location within the US.
This puts it within the jurisdiction of US law.
I will also add that it wouldn't cost even remotely what you claim.
US law is notorious for it's overreach due to it's status as a superpower.
There was one such case where though not being legally capable of ordering a bank to surrender client records to a court within the US with a normal search and seizure subpoena as it's data and HQ were located in the cayman islands, they instead levied a fine of several million dollars a day on it's subsidiary, until they complied.
They caved after a few days naturally.
With the precedent set, this is now the norm in common law.
If contract terms were the deciding factor, we wouldn't need courts.
So please, keep your spouting your laughable attempts at attempting to comprehend a subject as complex as law.
Firstly "international law" is something that only exists between nation states.
Is R2GAMES a sovereign state? no?
I didn't think so, therefore the entire concept of international law is not applicable.
Contract terms, that is to say terms of service in this case, are notoriously unenforceable.
Among such terms is the one you mention that they can only be sued in a court of their choosing.
In practice what actually happens, is that a subsidiary is the one being sued.
The location of the corporate headquarters is irrelevant.
R2GAMES actually has a location within the US.
This puts it within the jurisdiction of US law.
I will also add that it wouldn't cost even remotely what you claim.
US law is notorious for it's overreach due to it's status as a superpower.
There was one such case where though not being legally capable of ordering a bank to surrender client records to a court within the US with a normal search and seizure subpoena as it's data and HQ were located in the cayman islands, they instead levied a fine of several million dollars a day on it's subsidiary, until they complied.
They caved after a few days naturally.
With the precedent set, this is now the norm in common law.
If contract terms were the deciding factor, we wouldn't need courts.
So please, keep your spouting your laughable attempts at attempting to comprehend a subject as complex as law.
^
Comment