>>If the EU comany is a subsiduary of the US company, then it will have to follow its orders and won't really be separate.
Maybe the US company could be a holding which would "only" own 100% of its independent EU subsidiary (which would be its own legal entity, reporting in EU)?
The question is: does America care about international law and treaties or will they just do whatever they want?
Ten years ago I knew the answer to this question. Today not so much.
This is why the EU should hedge its bets and keep the door open for Chinese companies.
Ten years ago the answer was also no, but with a bit more lip service.
The US hasn't bothered with such things as the ban on landmines, the ICC for war crimes, and the U.N. convention on rights of the child. The U.S. is only interested in law that binds other countries.
> Ten years ago I knew the answer to this question. Today not so much.
10 years ago, the NSA existed., Now the NSA exists.
The USA, like other big powers, is going to want to try to get access to information and computer systems.
> This is why the EU should hedge its bets and keep the door open for Chinese companies.
You appear to be saying that because the USA gets its hands on Europe's data, Europe should let China do so as well. That doesn't make sense to me, so I wonder what it is you are saying.
The USA is by all accounts a 'rogue' state by its own definition of the term (China is too).
It doesn't abide by international conventions or laws, it engages in wars of aggression, it bullies smaller nations into accepting laws and trade agreements favourable to itself. It pushes crap like the DMCA globally.
Of course it doesn't care about international law.
Superpowers get away with this for a time, until everybody else wises up to the fact that nobody is following the rules.
Maybe the US company could be a holding which would "only" own 100% of its independent EU subsidiary (which would be its own legal entity, reporting in EU)?