They could do that with their shopping app that lets you scan an item and checkout in app; but as soon as people found out they were charged different prices for the same thing on say the same day it would be a PR nightmare. I can see it more as a way to adjust prices dynamically regionally based on demand, not much different than what is done anyway just faster.

I’m with you, how do they know what price to charge once you are at the checkout line? If you shop with someone and they track by phone, which phone to use at checkout? Both? What if one person doesn’t go to the line? It’s not as easy as change digital tag.

However, if tehy sell a product in the US, tehy do have at least an economic nexus, and DeepSeek certainly does, which is teh company I was referring to.

That of course, is teh challenge with teh transnational nature of teh internet. There isn't a whole lot teh EU could do if tehy decided a foreign website violated tehir laws, beyond say requiring ISPs to block your website, unless of course they sold stuff to EU citizens. Teh question I posed is an economic nexus enough to trigger Constitutional protections?

Yea, you are right, my bad. Should not drink and post...

Good to know. I'll probably catch it when it comes out on streaming.

I'm not sure United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez aapplies like you think it does. If that were teh case, any foreign corporation without a physical/substantial presence do not have to comply with US law even if tehy offer services in the US, or foreign banks comply with US reporting laws on US citizens.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was about a search and seizure of a non-US citizen in a foreign country. Teh question is does offering services in the US via teh web and charging for tehm establish enough of a presence to be afforded Constitutional protection?

Cheap Chinese copy

Nostalgia is very powerful. All the boomers that grew up with coyote versus road Runner cartoons now get a chance to relive that.

Which is way everyone gets rich, but a movie never makes money. Only a fool takes a cut of the gross Smart money gets a cut of the net.

And collusion is all so not illegal, as standards committees prove.

I have, and nothing in there or their T&Cs asserts they will always develop at some specific pace; their statements are very subjective and is the usual marketing puffery which is not some guarantee of anything and not grounds for a lawsuit. They talked about rapid scaling and increasing capabilities, but made no promises as to what that means in terms of how fast or what those capabilities will be, merely that it would get better and more powerful; and it still will, at a different pace. They talked about development speed as a competitive edge, but the market has shifted and they are responding. It is not reasonable to expect a company to develop products at some pace decided by outside persons based on some early product hype; and customers where getting specific product for their subscription and could always cancel if they don't like it. No one suffered a loss, and thus the lawsuit is bullshit.

Slowing down development is still ongoing development, just a different pace.

However "better and more powerful" doesn't imply a pace of development. Slowing it done is not incompatible with "better and mire powerful."

DeepSeek offers services in the US and thus would come under the protection of teh 1st Amendment, teh same as any foreign company offering services in the US, the Constitution doesn't discriminate between US and non-US entities in teh US as far as their rights are concerned. A more tenuous argument, IMHO, would be such a ban violates he ight to freedom of association of those in the US.

Welcome to an age where everyone is entitled...