> Unfortunately, these cases are becoming more common where largely copyright holders are attempting to get a ruling in one jurisdiction and have it apply worldwide to terminate core Internet technology services and effectively wipe content offline. Again, we believe this is a dangerous precedent to set, placing the control of what content is allowed online in the hands of whatever jurisdiction is willing to be the most restrictive.
It is pretty hard to suggest that someone can sue Cloudflare in a random country with either a corrupt or weak judicial system (not saying that's the case here, but in general) then get it taken down globally. To add, taking things down in a single country might not be super effective with the way the internet works, and the court might see someone browsing from a VPN and claim that a geoip-based block is insufficient for compliance.
Although, I don't know the exact case you're referring to or if it's covered by this statement.
If you don't - then the legal standards you have will be those of the worst country in the world. If Iran and North Korea issue court rulings banning cloudflare, should that affect people using cloudflare everywhere else?
Even in that article they say "While we will generally follow legal orders to restrict security and conduit services," - how can you say this? No other business says "while we will generally accept court judgments..."