It's not though, they can still sell subscriptions and show ads without violating user's privacy.

> they can still sell subscriptions and show ads without violating user's privacy

At risk of going off topic, there are two issues at play. One, respecting users' privacy. And two, complying with GDPR. The former does not always mean the latter.

And even if one complies with GDPR, having material over which GDPR applies could result in frivolous complaints and costly regulatory interactions. It is reasonable for a newspaper with a mostly non-Europe to spend resources on other priorities.

But they still have the data of European residents. So merely blocking access to EU residents hasn't done much to lessen their GDPR liability, unless they've cleaned all their data.

From what I have read about GDPR here, the intent matters. By blocking EU ip addresses, they have shown their intent to not service the EU and therefore are exempt from GDPR.

> they still have the data of European residents

Source? Ensuring the permanent deletion of certain data, once, is easier than implementing an a new and complicated compliance regime.

There is no source needed that is a result of jurisdictions and national sovereignty

If China passed a law saying you must now delete all references to Tiananmen Square if you have nothing to expoae yourself to their legal jurisdiction you can keep it and literally tell them to get bent.

This is what I don't understand. Why did the LA Times add the IP filter in the first place? Why do they care if they get sued and/or fined by a foreign country? Let the EU block their IPs or DNS themselves if they feel like it.

To make money advertising to EU users, most advertisers probably have some EU presence, hence the ad network would too. Thus, the ad network might require their users to be GPDR-compliant.

But I certainly don’t know how much that effects their income and I doubt you do too. Maybe it’s not worth it without the tracking.