I'm afraid that's simply not true. If they were moving goods into the US then that would apply, but in this case you are going "out" of the US, buying a product being sold in the EU, and effectively importing it yourself back into the US when you download it.

Actually, it literally does. It's not what they meant, but definitely what they did say.

I'm not sure where you get this idea, but any digital purchase made has to adhere to local laws of the purchaser's location.

There is a possibility of some clauses changing things like governing law for parts of the contract (usually the infamous arbitration clauses courtesy of California and the 8th circuit), but they can never supersede local laws.

Do you have a cite for this? I'm not even sure which entity could make such a law. I assume it would have to be an EU law, as the US cannot just enforce its laws in other countries.

I think you need to review the meaning of "literally". They promised "a portrait pack", and I certainly agree that if the pack they gave is just two portraits, that sucks and is quite underwhelming. But the fact is, we received "a portrait pack" and that is what they promised.

I also thought the existing pack was probably what we would be getting, but even at the time I wasn't sure because that isn't exactly what they said.

I hope wiki is enough. Don't feel like digging through justia right now to find the actual law itself. IIRC it's spread over a bunch of precedent cases and legal amendments (yeah, our legal system is... special):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_law#Jurisdiction You might also want to read more on "general personal jurisdiction" and "specific personal jurisdiction."

Finally, there's this part of GOG's own EULA: While California state laws differ from mine, the federal law is the same (and overruling any conflicts).

This all relates to the user, not the vendor. You are subject to your countries laws, and if you were to try to do something like hacking GOG, they would have legal recourse to you. It doesn't go both ways though. Unless...

GOG explicitly defers jurisdiction and agrees to function under US law, in which case it does.

This. I rate the OP 10 chef's kisses out of 10.

Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.

I never knew they had some clause for American customers. Now I'm only wondering why they have such a thing for one specific country - is it because publishers actually want to have some US laws involved, or is it some kind of courtesy for Americans? Either way, interesting.


Still, the basic rule is that it's the laws of that country where the selling party is located that matter, that is actually very clearly stated by GOG (with the exception of that strange USA exception...):

(emphasis added)

"For users resident in the European Union and elsewhere in the world (but not the USA):


19.1 You and we agree that your use of GOG services and GOG content and this Agreement will be governed by and interpreted according to the laws of the Republic of Poland and that any dispute regarding this Agreement will be heard non-exclusively by the courts of the Republic of Poland."

They are actually required so my bilateral trade agreements with the EU.

I don't know if it's the result of trade agreements between EU or the rest of the world, or a non-binding clause common in EULAs that simply hasn't been tested in court.

Without a local law allowing such transfer of jurisdiction, any nation has the right to effect their own laws on anybody doing business within their borders. And local internet users are considered "within the borders" in all the cases I'm familiar with.

Well.. for starters, our "best money can buy" judicial system is rather heavily pro-corporate.

Especially if you ensure to have arbitration cause and governing jurisdiction tied to the 9th Circuit Court, which is infamous for being particularly pro-corporate.

US and EU countries also have trade agreements long in place that tie governing jurisdiction to customer's residence, if lacking the above clauses. Which US law permits because poor corporations cannot be expected to have nationwide legal representation, and if you're a private entity, the requirement to haul ass across the nation is enough to kill any potential suits before they happen. Like I said, "best money can buy."

There's also the fact that EU in general has much stronger customer protection laws from the instances I've read on. Hell, you guys get to enjoy at least partial protection of privacy courtesy of GDPR... meanwhile, as an example, our ISPs can freely trade anything dug out from the traffic going over their pipes.

I also assume it helps if your local legal representation actually knows the applicable laws (so having a European lawyer represent the company in the US wouldn't work anywhere as well as having a US lawyer).

Edit: Just as a curiosity, here's an example case of determining applicable jurisdiction:
http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/wais/db/cases2/050319u1.html

A legally-Canadian company suing a legally-Czech (later moved to Croatia) corporate entity in US court (New York), because of FDA filing by the "Canadians" ;)