>>74378208>>74374719International Contract law makes it clear that in any civil dispute over a contract, the defendant's jurisdiction is the one that the case takes place in. So if a company wanted to sue a talent living in the US for breach of contract (due to immediately switching companies while under a Non-Compete Agreement), that suit would immediately stop in its tracks under NA regulations (assuming this regulation change goes through, which IS a legitimate concern).
If a JP corpo wants to sue an American, they have to play by American rules. And if American rules say "that clause isn't real; we don't acknowledge it as legitimate", then the JP corpo is just fucked out of whatever they wanted in that case, or they have to find something else to claim Breach of Contract with.
This all ignores that 90% of corporate suits are settled before they even get to court, of course.
>Can't the JP corpo just sue the talent in Japan?Yes and no. A JP court could easily say "that's not our jurisdiction" and refuse to pass judgement. But even if they did pass judgement, a JP court can't reasonably enforce a judgement on a US citizen for a civil case. The talent would need to have assets in Japan for the suit to be anything but a dog and pony show, so if the company actually wanted anything out of it, they would have to sue the talent where their assets are.
This is part of the reason international bank accounts are common in the business world: It is significantly harder to yank significant assets if your assets in your "home" and "work" jurisdictions are exclusively the minimum needed to keep your business running. 
