In reply to Mike Schinkel.

Mike,

The problem with your comment is that you are taking a concept from American law (especially that of nexus) and treating it as if it were a universal legal doctrine to be applied everywhere in the same way.

Precedent, for example, is not a cornerstone of the law in most of continental Europe. It's a device of common law systems, but is typically unknown in the civil law world. (There are exceptions to that general statement, but not many.)

Nexus is typically the way that jurisdiction is established in the US. But it's arguable even within the US in some areas of the law (e.g. bankruptcy). It's certainly not a universal test.

In fact, the US is just like the EU in that, in many instances, it asserts jurisdiction (even over foreign entities) when the interests of its citizens are at stake. That's precisely what the EU is doing here.

There doesn't need to be a "local representative" for enforcement action. For example, assets held in the EU that are traceable to the relevant US person or entity (e.g. a vacation home) can still be seized.

Obviously, it is unlikely that the EU or a Member State would seek to take action against a small entity for a minor breach when that entity is outside the EU. Everyone has priorities, and this would not be high on the EU's list.

Rather than denying jurisdiction on grounds irrelevant to EU law, what I would suggest is that people in the US should so what they should do with regard to any business risk. Carry out a proper risk assessment and then decide what your best course of action should be.