Defendant BATCo

Defendant BATCo claims that the district court erred in 53 imposing liability on the basis of its conduct outside the United States. Noting that the district court found that its “activities and statements took place outside of the United States,” Philip Morris, BATCo claims that it enjoys immunity from RICO liability because the statute has no extraterritorial reach. We need not decide today whether RICO has true extraterritorial reach—that is, whether it could reach foreign conduct with no impact on the United States—because the district court found BATCo liable on the theory that its conduct had substantial domestic effects.

Because conduct with substantial domestic effects implicates a state’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens within its borders, Congress’s regulation of foreign conduct meeting this “effects” test is “not an extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction.”  Thus, when a statute is applied to conduct meeting the effects test, the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply.