Can’t they argue they “did business with” someone in whatever jurisdiction the VPN IP address is located?
Yes, that’s why VPNs work for evading geo-blocking.
This law creates a liability trap by explicitly saying that they cannot claim ignorance and are liable as as long as the State can prove that the user was physically located in the EU.
The only way to effectively comply with the law is to implement universal age verification of all users, regardless of location. This is the actual goal, the law in this article is specifically designed to remove the VPN dodge.
I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.) My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.)
They don’t have to.
What the law does is remove the ability for the company to apply the defense ‘I knew they were located in Russia’.
The State only has to prove two elements 1. The person was physically in Utah and 2. That they did business.
This law makes it so that there is no ‘I didn’t know’ defense.
My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
A State investigator makes an account, uses a VPN, and ‘does business with’ the site.
When they bring the case to court. The site is guilty because they can prove that the investigator was in Utah and that they did business with the site.
States love to do this, they remove the mens rea (guilty mind) element so that you’re guilty regardless of your knowledge or intent.
Yes, that’s why VPNs work for evading geo-blocking.
This law creates a liability trap by explicitly saying that they cannot claim ignorance and are liable as as long as the State can prove that the user was physically located in the EU.
The only way to effectively comply with the law is to implement universal age verification of all users, regardless of location. This is the actual goal, the law in this article is specifically designed to remove the VPN dodge.
I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.) My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
They don’t have to.
What the law does is remove the ability for the company to apply the defense ‘I knew they were located in Russia’.
The State only has to prove two elements 1. The person was physically in Utah and 2. That they did business.
This law makes it so that there is no ‘I didn’t know’ defense.
A State investigator makes an account, uses a VPN, and ‘does business with’ the site.
When they bring the case to court. The site is guilty because they can prove that the investigator was in Utah and that they did business with the site.
States love to do this, they remove the mens rea (guilty mind) element so that you’re guilty regardless of your knowledge or intent.