Official Legal Complaint: Breach of EU Consumer Protection Laws and Unfair Pricing

[PaleFox]

You are welcome to your opinion, but can you cite a single case where a corporation incorporated in the U.S. had it's entire operation shut down by the EU because it was owned by a European Company?

From it's start it was a US corporation with no foreign ties. It was later purchased by a Swedish corporation that considers itself a holding company and lets SSG operate very independently. In other words, SSG is an investment.

Even if the EU did have the authority over a US corporation owned by an EU Corporation - which I doubt they do - they would never try it and risk fallout for something so ridiculously minor and non-impactful.

Ok, to me you're asking it weirdly, as it comes across to me that you're asking if an US (or any non-EU) organization was shut down just because it's owner was residential (listed) in the EU.

The EU doesn't act outside its borders, at best (or worst depending how you look at it) they contact a foreign official government agency with a request and a case.

There should be some form of misconduct in its market according to EU regulations for the EU to undertake actions.
Last most notorious case is that of Clearview AI (which still exists btw.)


For more serious matters there are sanctions, but even those are named restrictive.

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

I have no idea about this particular area as is not my practice but rules that govern indirect ownership are often referred to as "attribution" or "affiliation" rules and are pretty common. In my practice area of tax there are a number of rules that treat EU companies owning US subsidiaries as US companies in certain circumstances (e.g., anti inversion rules in 26 US 7874) or treat all affiliated companies as a single company (e.g., the regulations under 1502). The EU has some instances of these rules as well (e.g., county by county financial reporting and/or GDPR).
They are enforced against the resident company if the non-residents don't comply. They are pretty common through the world and almost universally complex and expensive to administer -- big publicly traded multinationals spend a significant amount of internal resources attempting to comply.

The Unitary concept for taxation (which I happen to be very familiar with as I developed a software product that handled this exact thing) is very different than someone stating the EU would shut down a corporation incorporated in U.S. because it's owned by an EU company as investment. There is no precedent for that - it never happened and I doubt this would be the EU's test case if they ever wanted to push their luck. There are alot of cases where sham companies are located in a specific country that the EU should go after but doesn't have time to - this is not one of those.

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

Bam nice Mic Drop for @Sarlona Raiding

Lol no - not all. I am familiar with what he is talking about and it's apples to oranges. I am still waiting for you to provide an example of where the EU shut down a US corporation because it was owned by an EU Corporation.

 

[PaleFox]

The Unitary concept for taxation (which I happen to be very familiar with as I developed a software product that handled this exact thing) is very different than someone stating the EU would shut down a corporation incorporated in U.S. because it's owned by an EU company as investment. There is no precedent for that - it never happened and I doubt this would be the EU's test case if they ever wanted to push their luck. There are alot of cases where sham companies are located in a specific country that the EU should go after but doesn't have time to - this is not one of those.

I must have missed that someone wanted a seize to exist to be handed over to SSG, I don't think that was the OPs intent at all.
(Nor what is being discussed here.)

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

I must have missed that someone wanted a seize to exist to be handed over to SSG, I don't think that was the OPs intent at all.
(Nor what is being discussed here.)

SSG is subservient to EG7, EG7 are there lords and masters, SSG arent owners they are employees, EG7 uas the ability to **** the game down if they want and send all SSG employees home jobless.

Also all actions done by SSG are impactful to the reputation of EG7 as they are under the EG7, that is why not a myself or a single person in my circle loads up any new game that holds under that unbrella with the same reputation.

 

[droid327]

I have no idea about this particular area as is not my practice but rules that govern indirect ownership are often referred to as "attribution" or "affiliation" rules and are pretty common. In my practice area of tax there are a number of rules that treat EU companies owning US subsidiaries as US companies in certain circumstances (e.g., anti inversion rules in 26 US 7874) or treat all affiliated companies as a single company (e.g., the regulations under 1502). The EU has some instances of these rules as well (e.g., county by county financial reporting and/or GDPR).
They are enforced against the resident company if the non-residents don't comply. They are pretty common through the world and almost universally complex and expensive to administer -- big publicly traded multinationals spend a significant amount of internal resources attempting to comply.

I think you missed the post where someone pointed out that online games, entertainment, and distributors of copyrighted materials are exempted from the regulation that you're saying EG7 would need to force SSG into compliance with

In other words, it doesnt matter, because there's no actual violation for the EU to hold either company accountable for

 

[PaleFox]

@Sarlona Raiding Ah, that clears things up a bit. In that case it isn't the EU who is shutting down an organisation but rather its new owners.

In that case I would like you to investigate Whirlpool as the last example.
It is not uncommon for a legal entity to be acquired and dissolved just to get a hold of something or eliminate competition.
EU vs US has nothing to do with that.

 

[Ilvati]

The Unitary concept for taxation (which I happen to be very familiar with as I developed a software product that handled this exact thing) is very different than someone stating the EU would shut down a corporation incorporated in U.S. because it's owned by an EU company as investment. There is no precedent for that - it never happened and I doubt this would be the EU's test case if they ever wanted to push their luck. There are alot of cases where sham companies are located in a specific country that the EU should go after but doesn't have time to - this is not one of those.

Yeah unitary is an example of an affiliation rule for sure (btw cool on the software -- now I'm wondering if I have used it at some point -- although I try to avoid state tax as much as possible ).

That said, my point was that it is common across areas of the law to see rules that aggregate corporate activity across entities through affiliation or attribution rules to do some test and apply an outcome (like a reporting requirement or fees or the like). So in this context having EG7, a public Swedish company, as a parent could easily (and I don't know because I don't do this area) put SSG within the ambit (through affiliation/attribution) of EU trade rules. Not sure who mentioned shutting down a company but yeah that's not happening in this context for sure.

 

[Ilvati]

I think you missed the post where someone pointed out that online games, entertainment, and distributors of copyrighted materials are exempted from the regulation that you're saying EG7 would need to force SSG into compliance with

In other words, it doesnt matter, because there's no actual violation for the EU to hold either company accountable for

I wasn't saying EG7 would need to force SSG to do anything! I was just saying rules that require groups of companies to be aggregated or that treat one company in a group like another company in the same group are common -- that's it.
I was trying to actively avoid the underlying question too

 

[The Narc2]

Lol no - not all. I am familiar with what he is talking about and it's apples to oranges. I am still waiting for you to provide an example of where the EU shut down a US corporation because it was owned by an EU Corporation.

I wont because you are trying to out words in my mouth that i didnt say. no need to prove anything to you. Try hrder.

 

[PaleFox]

Yeah unitary is an example of an affiliation rule for sure (btw cool on the software -- now I'm wondering if I have used it at some point -- although I try to avoid state tax as much as possible ).

That said, my point was that it is common across areas of the law to see rules that aggregate corporate activity across entities through affiliation or attribution rules to do some test and apply an outcome (like a reporting requirement or fees or the like). So in this context having EG7, a public Swedish company, as a parent could easily (and I don't know because I don't do this area) put SSG within the ambit (through affiliation/attribution) of EU trade rules. Not sure who mentioned shutting down a company but yeah that's not happening in this context for sure.

I think that was more meant as in a last resort type of effort to get some sort of resolution of an organisation themselves when confronted with a non compliant subsidiary at one side and a demanding government agency that is swapping fines around.

 

[The Narc2]

Yeah unitary is an example of an affiliation rule for sure (btw cool on the software -- now I'm wondering if I have used it at some point -- although I try to avoid state tax as much as possible ).

That said, my point was that it is common across areas of the law to see rules that aggregate corporate activity across entities through affiliation or attribution rules to do some test and apply an outcome (like a reporting requirement or fees or the like). So in this context having EG7, a public Swedish company, as a parent could easily (and I don't know because I don't do this area) put SSG within the ambit (through affiliation/attribution) of EU trade rules. Not sure who mentioned shutting down a company but yeah that's not happening in this context for sure.

Thats right no one mentioned shutting down an entire company, except the person asking for proof of it.

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

Thats right no one mentioned shutting down an entire company, except the person asking for proof of it.

SSG is subservient to EG7, EG7 are there lords and masters, SSG arent owners they are employees, EG7 uas the ability to **** the game down if they want and send all SSG employees home jobless.

Also all actions done by SSG are impactful to the reputation of EG7 as they are under the EG7, that is why not a myself or a single person in my circle loads up any new game that holds under that unbrella with the same reputation.

 

[Stein]

So like, to get this out of the way: lol, this is a very funny and stupid way to go about forcing compliance, but OP is pretty clearly correct that SSG is out of compliance with these specific statutes and they will actually almost certainly be told to get in compliance Or Else.

The EU has become increasingly hostile to companies operating out of places like America that play fast and loose with compliance. OP couldn't really 'sue' for this, not easily at least, but those regulatory bodies he mentioned are serious organizations that take stuff like this quite seriously, especially as the rift between the EU and US regulatory environments has grown wider.

As a sort of PSA: Don't make threads like this, it won't really get you anywhere with the company. If they refuae to be compliant just file the complaint with the regulatory agency and then tell the company "Here are my reference #s from speaking with XYZ agency, i look forward to a healthy resolution of this issue, thank you for your time."

It's fun to mock OP for being a little bit socially awkward about this, but I do think it's important to keep context that his country probably WILL investigate this if it's brought in front of their eyes and poland has a reputation for having pretty serious teeth when it comes to companies trying to skirt around regulations. They also probably won't ban him for this thread (And if they're smart, won't for repeated tickets either) because uh, the EU DOES look incredibly harshly on american companies trying to "ban away" EU citizen complaints.

Speaking as someone who's gotten multiple actual payouts from companies like Amtrak for being in violation of the law about e-commerce, you absolutely can affect change by bringing stuff to the right authority. SSG does business in Poland, they really should be compliant and if they're not a consumer does absolutely have the right to punish them.

 

[The Narc2]

@Sarlona Raiding regarding his post #73 which he is using to support his theory that I had posted that EG7 would shut down an entire company over the OP’s issue.

Yes notice my post references the word “game” meaning DDO, the employees i was referring to are the ones working on the game(DDO) that is non compliant, not the entire company.

Good job taking things out of context.

 

[Sarlona Raiding]

@Sarlona Raiding regarding his post #73 which he is using to support his theory that I had posted that EG7 would shut down an entire company over the OP’s issue.

Yes notice my post references the word “game” meaning DDO, the employees i was referring to are the ones working on the game(DDO) that is non compliant, not the entire company.

Good job taking things out of context.

It could be I misunderstood what you meant by "send all SSG employees home jobless".

We can agree that EG7 and SSG should try to improve the current situation for our European friends.

 

[The Narc2]

It could be I misunderstood what you meant by "send all SSG employees home jobless".

We can agree that EG7 and SSG should try to improve the current situation for our European friends.

My respect, sometimes I go over the top and get a little too edgy.

We both agree that things could be better, i have wished the OP good luck.

 

[Phaedra]

I just want to know what it is in a person that when a company tells you so clearly it doesn't want your money, you continue to insist or trying to give it to them?

 

[Uska]

If they want to so business in the EU, they are.
And if you had read the post, EG7 is a Swedish company

so what they dont own DDO an American company does

 

[Uska]

SSG is subservient to EG7, EG7 are there lords and masters, SSG arent owners they are employees, EG7 uas the ability to **** the game down if they want and send all SSG employees home jobless.

Also all actions done by SSG are impactful to the reputation of EG7 as they are under the EG7, that is why not a myself or a single person in my circle loads up any new game that holds under that unbrella with the same reputation.

no