Thread

1. booi · 1789587238 · focus · HN ↗

   let me guess.. regulatory capture?

   1. fakedang · 1789588670 · focus · HN ↗

      Maybe don't guess and read the article? European data sovereignty and CLOUD act.

      1. guywithahat · 1789591806 · focus · HN ↗

         But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture, although it sort of reads like they had a US parent company to attend y combinator and raise money, but are now moving fully to Berlin, which is what they intended from the start.

         1. greggoB · 1789592355 · focus · HN ↗

            > But "European data sovereignty" is regulatory capture

            This doesn't match my understanding of regulatory capture [0] - is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU's data protection laws in order to benefit from by blocking out competitors? Would be unexpected, since laws like GDPR predate its founding.

            [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Regulatory_capture" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Regulatory_capture

            1. guywithahat · 1789657244 · focus · HN ↗

               &gt; is there any evidence that this company specifically orchestrated the EU&#x27;s data protection laws

               Companies don&#x27;t write laws. All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and&#x2F;or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and&#x2F;or other competition. The point is that type of economic productivity is useless and derived from corruption in a free market. For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that.

               And for what its worth your wiki link seems to agree with me, I&#x27;m not sure why you posted it.

               1. greggoB · 1789673910 · focus · HN ↗

                  I never claimed companies write laws, but they do lobby governments to write laws which are beneficial for them. This is well-documented, including in the US, fwiw.

                  &gt; All regulatory capture requires is for the company to be benefiting from laws and&#x2F;or policy designed to exclude foreign companies and&#x2F;or other competition

                  This doesn&#x27;t match what the wiki links says (first sentence):

                  &gt; In politics, regulatory capture (also called agency capture) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency[...]

                  Operative word is &quot;co-opted&quot;, which sort of fits with what would be required for something to be considered corruption. So no, the company can&#x27;t just benefit, they also have to have pushed for the specific outcome.

                  &gt; For years the EU has attempted to exclude US tech companies from competing and this is a continuation of that.

                  I find this quite hard to believe. Digital sovereignty in the EU only really started in 2025, prior regulation like GDPR has applied to tech companies from all companies, including the EU. The continent has effectively allowed Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc, to dominate the tech scene here since their inception. Perhaps you&#x27;re thinking of China.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.