No. And here is why I think so: SO is something that is perhaps based (located) in the US, but it has international span - a sort of international company if you will. **The problem with such companies and legalities is that each franchise must follow rules of country it is located in.** But SO doesn't have franchises, so its legal issues are mostly determined by popular vote (using the website is deemed as *`ok`*, not using the website is deemed as *`not ok`*) and one could argue that location of website is under jurisdiction of where servers are located at (or the seat of the company) - but in that example, and ever moving servers are then difficult to place under any jurisdiction - **since servers(or its content) can change location, and the company can relocate**. And as that, it shows that any presumed legality of any company that has online presence is enforced by country it is in, but since the span of such a company overreaches its territorial borders, it is easily circumvented. One can argue that the ILA (International Law Association ) could get this case, but the issue here is basis of all countries’ constitutions (and by proxy their laws) that are built upon up to 5 international papers among which are Human Rights as original base (among monarchy succession, what constitutes independence of the country... ). So ILA often just translates from the laws of one country to the laws of another - among bigger issues. In general laws, are detailed implementations and descriptions (with exceptions) of constitutional rights. So if one country A has "By law XX one is deemed qualified for the job once he/she is of right legal age (defined by law XY), and one can start new working position as long as she/he isn't in prior contract..." and country B has "By law XX one is deemed qualified for a job once he/she is of right legal age (defined by law XY), or of amendment of Z.X with consent of their guardian" the main issue is translation from how to make both countries happy that a person who is from country A, working in country B is the right age (with/without consent of their guardian) and it doesn't have a job already. The reason why any petition often doesn't work here is because we need laws to further explain how people should govern themselves, and any international case must beforehand follow (first) International law and (second) everything else. That is the reason why most terms of services first list country company (product) originates from, and then in general laws that are from those country. Since I am in Serbia, Apple will not prosecute me if I mess with its branding/product - *I mean they can try... but good luck*. And this is also the reason why most international rules in internet society follow basic discrimination (and/or oppression) act with no more than that (constituted by Human Rights). So, as conclusion: There is no chance in hell, that SO can be beaten in court (or any other legal object) in this case, since everyone already moderating here are: 1. Doing it on their own volition - *which means they are willingly breaking the law in their state/country by act of intent* 2. Laws don't work retroactively (laws that are made/constituted after company is established don't work on prior issues ) - aka they start working at the moment they are announced public. 3. "I didn't know" - is never a good defending policy. And SO has our data in server, so any misnomer (however minuscule) in our part can be bad for us in court of law. Their lawyers know a lot of loopholes, and differences. And even if someone (by luck/or something else) succeeds in prosecuting SO, that someone is effectively shutting down their own country from SO , and due to nuances in international law differences next mods could be of anything but American nationality. In reality, internet social community is poorly regulated since noone knows under which law to regulate it. We are used to have local laws as our guides, and noone to take our side. Aside from basic Human Rights (which are further detailly implemented by law) even if Human Right is broken, no one can actually pursue it. We don't have our international government, international laws and international courts. So I understand that probably you have found this law of your own curiosity (or desire to be payed for your modship), but SO has no desire (or need) to grant you your request unless you have some leverage. [Employment and labor laws and regulations][1] - for USA citizens ---- * 1.3 Do contracts of employment have to be in writing? If not, do employees have to be provided with specific information in writing? >No, written contracts of employment are not required. Federal employment laws do not require employers to provide employees with specific information; *however*, **state and local employment laws may require particular information to be in writing.** But among others, the rest of regulations (explained by these lawyers) is highly dependent on state and local employment laws. If new law is to be written and accepted, for federal acceptance, over 51% (i think) of states must accept it. If law isn't accepted (as example of amendment of [women rights][2] currently in USA 38 are needed ) or appealing to be accepted, regulation of such laws are independent and outside of constitution. Built on constitution, often comes federal layer of regulations, and then implementations of law from state to state. So laws can differ in nuances or in differences from state to state, and therefore jurisdiction can vary. [1]: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/employment-and-labour-laws-and-regulations/usa [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment