302 Hong Kong Cases [2008] 1 HKC 81. Our view on this issue can be shortly stated. Mr Tim Mak, on behalf of YHHK and Mr Chang on behalf of the Commissioner both accepted that Beijing Yahoo! was the agent of YHHK. Mr Mak, on behalf of YHHK, also confirmed that the Disclosure Order was issued to the business address of ‘Yahoo! HK Holdings Ltd Beijing Representative Office’. In the light of the corporate structure of the Yahoo! group of companies, the Commissioner’s view that YHHK had control over the relevant information (despite the separate management and operations of the Yahoo! China website) must be correct. 82. We also accept Mr Ho’s submission that even if Beijing Yahoo! disclosed the relevant information to the SSB under the compulsion of law, Beijing Yahoo! (and hence YHHK) still retained control over such information, whether before or after the relevant disclosure. The fact that Beijing Yahoo!/ YHHK was acting under compulsion of law did not and could not ‘vitiate’ their control. Clearly Beijing Yahoo! chose to disclose the information. The fact that it was done in order to comply with local laws does not affect whether it was in control of the information or its disclosure. 83. Because YHHK had control over the information disclosed to the SSB, and assuming that the relevant information constituted ‘personal data’, we are of the view that YHHK was a ‘data user’ as defined under the Ordinance. H. GROUND THREE: WHETHER THE ORDINANCE HAS EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION 84. Mr Ho, on behalf of the appellant, accepted the Commissioner’s view that ‘it suffıces to find jurisdiction if any part of the data cycle was at the relevant time controlled by a relevant data user ‘in or from’ Hong Kong’: s 39(l)(d)(i)(B) of the Ordinance. However, he argued that the Commissioner had erred in finding that this condition had not been satisfied. 85. For substantially the same reasons advanced in relation to the 2nd ground of appeal, Mr Ho submitted that the Commissioner erred with regard to the meaning of ‘control’ He therefore contended that since YHHK did have ‘control’ over the relevant information, the condition in s 39(l)(d)(i)(B) was satisfied. Accordingly, the present incident did fall within the jurisdiction of the Ordinance. 86. We are unable to agree with Mr Ho’s submissions. Section 39(1)(d) is not a provision dealing with extra-territorial application of the A B C D E F G H I