It sounds reasonable. Why should it be different to collecting money here by any other means?

Does that mean that if a business only accepts USD then GDPR cannot apply?

No. Here GBP and EUR are used as evidence of something, their lack does not imply the opposite.

> Does that mean that if a business only accepts USD then GDPR cannot apply?

If it doesn't operate in UK/EU, then yes.

The judgement is that offering transactions in the local currencies (£/€) is tantamount to operating in the UK/EU. It is expanding the definition of what it means to be operating in the UK/EU for GDPR purposes.

Therefore either physically operating in the UK/EU (i.e. a local office) or effectively operating in UK/EU (trading in £/€) is sufficient to establish the link for GDPR purposes. It's not an "and", it's an "or", both don't have to be true. If the ruling stands that is.

No, it merely removes one of the reasons why it could apply. There may be other reasons for it to apply.

I'm not sure why you got the downvotes as it is actually a good question.

AFAICS that wasn't a situation the court was asked to decide on so it didn't decide on it. The choice of currency was taken as an indication of trading in the EU (including the UK at the time). Presumably this was what the complainant argued. If they only accepted dollars there may have been other indications for the complainant to argue and the court to accept or reject as it considered appropriate.

If they only accepted USD and specifically said "Not available in the EU" or maybe USD and other non-EU currencies the situation might have been different but you'd need to see how a court ruled in those circumstances to be sure.

Case law grows by interpreting the legislation in relation to specific sets of circumstances.

Does this mean that a UK company accepting payment in USD becomes subject to US Law, and more importantly, US tax policy?

A while back, a musical group (Dutch, IIRC) were awarded a successful copyright infringement ruling in the US, but they were not awarded any damages because their music was not registered for copyright in the US, despite this not being a requirement in their country (or any other country in the Berne Convention).

So in response to your question, I think " if and when it suits them " would be the most appropriate answer.

Not necessarily. Certainly not US tax policy.

There are actually more US$ spent in the UK than in the USA, thanks to The City of London.

Also, if for example, you own an oil field in the North Sea (Scotland), and sell 1 million barrels of oil to a refinery in Grangemouth (also Scotland), your invoice will be for $76,240,000, not £56,530,000.

Does crude oil being priced in US dollars mean that the transactions actually take place using US dollars?

No. Triganic Ningis. Which explains why the energy market is a little dysfunctional lately.

You'd think they'd have made enough to own a Pu...

Don't see how accepting certain currencies leads to that leap of logic.

All it seems to me is that its taking account of different payment preferences, used to work on software with and so (obviously to be more user friendly to potential customers) Euro and US dollar was offered as an alternative to UK sterling (with a bit of markup to cover currency fluctuation rates, costs of conversion to sterling, and Euro and dollar prices frequently updated (automated) to make sure no big hits from unpleasant exchange rate wobbles)

As it was digital download then no knowledge of customer location (use of dollar not necessarily US, ditto Euro use may not mean EU ... I used to have a EU bank account in Euros for a while as on a contract where I was paid in Euros and worked out better value than UK banks "interesting" exchange rates applied if banking Euros in a sterling account)

I fail to see how being nice to customers like that implies implicit use of EU data protection rules.*

* irrelevant as company was GDPR compliant (when I was there, no reason to assume its changed)

See para 97 of the ruling:

"On the evidence, the defendants did more than merely making their journalism accessible over the world wide web. They intended to make their output available in the UK and EU, and succeeded in attracting a more than minimal readership. In due course they expressly solicited subscriptions from within the UK and EU, via the Patreon platform. They succeeded in securing three subscriptions in sterling and three in Euros. This may be “minimal” activity but nothing more is required, according to the authorities."

Most Patreons are priced in US$.

If you are in the UK, Patreon will probably convert it to £ for you, or if they don't, your bank will if you pay from a £ account. But this company was actually pricing the subscriptions in £.

Plus the conversion rate is not stable in time when the offer is in USD, and then converted by a website script, bank or PayPal. Pinning the price in GBP or EUR to a fixed value implies quite a bit more involvement in the EU and the UK, and tayloring your offers to that market. Whether that's a reasonable assumption is for the Information Commissioner and the next court to decide. I can sort of follow the argument - though I am not sure if I really like the conclusion and the can of worms this implies.

It turns out they didn't just imply involvement. Para 85 of the ruling has

"the first defendant tweeted, and the second defendant re-tweeted “Everyone in the UK or EU can now pledge to Patreon in their local currency of Euros or Pounds. This will help prevent you paying extra conversion fees from your bank.”"

And that is probably the key point of the finding.

I had to go and check my memory as I thought GDPR was actually broad enough to always apply if the data subject or the data controller was a subject of a signed up country but from the guidance there does also have to be a targeting of the individual that had entitlement to those rights. So an incidental customer/user is fine but if you market to a UK/EU citizen then GDPR absolutely applies.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en.

The GDPR applies to:

a company or entity which processes personal data as part of the activities of one of its branches established in the EU, regardless of where the data is processed; or

a company established outside the EU and is offering goods/services (paid or for free) or is monitoring the behaviour of individuals in the EU.

If your company is a small and medium-sized enterprise ('SME') that processes personal data as described above you have to comply with the GDPR. However, if processing personal data isn’t a core part of your business and your activity doesn't create risks for individuals, then some obligations of the GDPR will not apply to you (for example the appointment of a Data Protection Officer ('DPO')). Note that ‘core activities’ should include activities where the processing of data forms an inextricable part of the controller’s or processor’s activities.

Examples

When the regulation applies

Your company is a small, tertiary education company operating online with an establishment based outside the EU. It targets mainly Spanish and Portuguese language universities in the EU. It offers free advice on a number of university courses and students require a username and a password to access your online material. Your company provides the said username and password once the students fill out an enrolment form.

When the regulation does not apply

Your company is service provider based outside the EU. It provides services to customers outside the EU. Its clients can use its services when they travel to other countries, including within the EU. Provided your company doesn't specifically target its services at individuals in the EU, it is not subject to the rules of the GDPR.

I don't think the judgement actually comments on this (at least it didn't before my eyes glazed over) but the implication seems to be that they knew, or at least assumed, some dollar subs were already coming from the EU and the subsequent half dozen UK or EU subs might only be a subset of those.

Mental note: Never accept payment in anything but Canadian or US dollars.

The rest of the world is nuts...

Like any smart squirrel, I only accept payment in acorns.

Would those acorns be the whole atom or just one electron?

10 electrons, or one BBC model b... ;)

So any business that has a switch on its web site to show prices in £ sterling is now subject to GDPR? News to AliExpress and the like, methinks.

Lord Justice Warby has form on inventing new law by precedent.

Aliexpress like many other businesses are subject to more than just GDPR, they ate also obliged to collect VAT at point of sale now, something that has come in within the last year.

That also applies to eBay when for example buying items from eBay.com (US) for shipment to Spain.

Some Patreon subscriptions listed in £'s are subject to VAT too - I have two in £'s, one gets VAT added the other doesn't. Not sure about $ subscriptions as I don't have any of those.

"Lord Justice Warby has form on inventing new law by precedent."

That's the nature of the job and, in fact, the law.

Where they taken out before or after they allegedly libelled him in a series of stories?

Would be funny if it turned out the Patreon subs where taken out by him or people know to him when he tries to sue and failed.