> Corporate law experts say while there is nothing illegal about housing a business inside a shell company, the practice is often a strategic move to protect a firm's wealth or shield it against lawsuits and action from government regulators.
What is the thought process of someone writing this? Does this article have any meaningful or critical thought behind it?
Maybe let's make it not normal?
The law firm at that address was not their registered agent. Their ToS mandated arbitration with an entity that doesn’t exist.
See also: Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me... 1090 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47397822
If it was just your average company it wouldn't be very interesting.
Mostly because international litigation is, let's say, fraught issues (as in "good luck!")
If I say "contact my lawyer" and you show up to his office and the receptionist informs you that I'm not a client ...
Now the opposite is happening. Businesses have no incentive being located in the same physical area they do business in. In fact, they have opposite incentives. The closer they are to their customers and workers, the less they can do things with impunity.
I don't understand the rest of the article, tho... It complains that company that (officially) left the US market and already blocks US ips from participating... isn't doing enough? Officially there's no ground to demand more
If you really want to solve the problem - start hunting down unofficial means. Investigate influencers that started mentioning Polymarket out of the blue. Look into news outlets that decided to start mentioning polymarket as supposed proxy of popular opinion. Start advertizing campaigns against gambling addiction the same way as against smoking
It doesn't make it acceptable, just endemic
Polymarket is forbidden to sell their product within the US. That doesn't mean they can't take investment from or employ or even be headquartered in the US.
If the shoe fits..
The only purpose I could see for this intro is to prime the reader negatively before any argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Illegal_activiti...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/the-panama-pape...
(Wow. It's only been 10 years since the leak occurred? How time flies.)
It would help a lot actually for protecting people's money instead of driving it offshore.
But it doesn't look like making USA compete in this $15B market is NPR's goal with this article.