That's not strictly true - or at least - it's missing a piece.
When a company decides to use a product, it needs to ensure that product is legal to use in their jurisdiction(s).
If it gets to a court, it's likely that the consumer/client is the claimant and the Company who chose to use US Product X is the defendant. The company who makes US Product X is likely nowhere to be seen.
> When a company decides to use a product, it needs to ensure that product is legal to use in their jurisdiction(s)
This is the proximal decider. They’re predicting the decision of the ultimate decider, which remains the courts. Providers would have to make the proximal deciders comfortable that the ultimate deciders will accept their compromise.
The courts, not consumers, are the ultimate deciders in this situation. Companies say so under oath and a judge weighs the evidence.