In light of the evidence obtained by the Respondent that it was Google LLC (and not Google HK) which operates the search engine outside of Hong Kong, the Board agrees with the Respondent on this issue without hesitation. 79. _ By reason of the above analysis the Board finds that: (a) The Ordinance does not apply to a foreign person or entity who has no operation controlled within or from Hong Kong since the Ordinance does not have extra-territorial effect; (b) As a matter of fact, Google LLC is not situated and does not have any operations in Hong Kong; (c) The jurisdiction and power of the Respondent are limited and do not extend to regulate and control the conduct of a foreign body such as Google LLC whose operations are not controlled within or from Hong Kong; (d) Hence, Google LLC does not fall within the scope of "data user 80. " under the Ordinance. The above conclusions and findings are sufficient to dispose of and dismiss the appeal. The above conclusion is actually the very reason why the Respondent could not pursue the Appellant,s complaint under the Ordinance as explained in paragraph 15 of the Respondent's Decision. The Board knows that the Respondent is reviewing the above effect of the Ordinance which for laymen including the Appellant may feel aggrieved. 56