Internet companies vs Governments
<p>When an internet company (like Twitter, Facebook etc.) does not comply with the rules of the government of a country what are the punitive measures that could be imposed? This in the context where the primary headquarters of the company are <em>not</em> in the country.</p>
<p>Clearly, the government can obviously act against individual employees of  the internet companies. However, since there is little by way of physical property that such a company has in the country, it is not clear what mechanisms are available to the government.</p>
<p>Specifically, this applies to the current standoff between the Government of India and Twitter.</p>

<p>A government can bring a criminal case or a civil action against a company that does business in that country as the law of the country may allow. If such a case results in a judgement against the company the government has various means of enforcement available, possibly including:</p>
<ul>
<li>Seizing any bank accounts the company may have in the country;</li>
<li>Seizing payments to the company made from inside the country;</li>
<li>Prohibiting the company from doing business in the country (if the county's laws permit this);</li>
<li>asking the courts of another country where the company does business to enforce the judgement. Many countries have treaties in which they agree, under certain circumstances, to enforce the judgements of each other's courts. Whether this would be available would depend on the terms of the treaty and the specific facts of the case.</li>
</ul>
<p>Sometimes, particularly if a company does little or no business in a particular country, the government of that country has no effective way to enforce a judgement against the company.</p>
<p>I do not know anything about the particular dispute mentioned in the question, and I have no opinion on its merits or whether the law of India would permit a judgement or fine in this case.</p>

<p>In the <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-issues-notice-in-plea-against-twitter-for-non-compliance-of-it-rules-2021-174943" rel="nofollow noreferrer">specific case</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The petitioner thus prayed for the appointment of a Resident Grievance
Officer and discharge of all other statutory and executive duties
under the IT Rules by Twitter and Twitter India</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which is because Twitter has not complied with the requirement to have such an officer (it is alleged, and the court seems to have agreed). The <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/appointed-grievance-officer-as-per-new-it-rules-twitter-tells-delhi-high-court-7337849/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">court has ruled</a> that must comply with that requirement within 3 weeks, and there shall be another hearing on July 6. The specific provision is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210226232352/http:/egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2021/225464.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 4</a> of the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (scroll past the Hindi version). Rule 7 says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where an intermediary fails to observe these rules,  the provisions of
sub-section  (1)  of  section  79  of  the  Act shall  not  be
applicable  to  such  intermediary  and  the  intermediary shall be
liable for punishment under any law for the time being in force
including the provisions of the Act and the Indian Penal Code</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is roughly the equivalent of &quot;Section 230&quot; in the US, so the provider loses their safe harbor.</p>

india