The case being made for the RESTRICT act is that it's needed because of "Chinese communist control" over TikTok.
Whether that's true or not, my reading of the actual proposed law is that it allows basically any U.S. tech company to fall under direct U.S. government control.
The reason I'm saying this is that companies that fall under this act are any in which any person in any foreign country that is now or is ever declared to be "foreign adversary" owns even one share of stock, at least by my reading.
From the bill:
A "holding" is defined as:
(i) an equity interest;
(ii) a stock;
(iii) a security;
(iv) a share;
(v) a partnership interest;
(vi) an interest in a limited liability company;
(vii) a membership interest; or
(viii) any participation, right, or other equivalent, however designated and of any character; and
(B) includes, without limitation, any security convertible into an ownership interest and right, warrant, or option to acquire ownership interests.
===
This seems to mean that if a company is public and someone from China owns a share, or if the company accepts VC money and anyone from any country that is declared an "adversary" was an investor in the fund, that company now is fair game for falling under government control.
I'm not a lawyer or legislative expert so it would be great to hear from people who are who can confirm or deny that this bill is actually a giant power grab, either intentionally or by sloppy drafting.
If this bill has the effect that I'm afraid it might, everyone in tech (and outside of tech too) should be very concerned.
Sure, it defines holding broadly, but the act doesn't allow actions on mere holdings, only on “Covered holdings”, which are “Controlling holdings" in firms in the domain covered.
On the other hand, it isn't restricted to actual holdings, since it expressly encompasses not only indirect controlling holdings, but also potential future direct or indirect controlling holdings as a basis for unlimited mitigation measures, so in that sense its even broader than you paint it.
2 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 23.2 ms ] threadWhether that's true or not, my reading of the actual proposed law is that it allows basically any U.S. tech company to fall under direct U.S. government control.
The reason I'm saying this is that companies that fall under this act are any in which any person in any foreign country that is now or is ever declared to be "foreign adversary" owns even one share of stock, at least by my reading.
From the bill:
A "holding" is defined as:
(i) an equity interest;
(ii) a stock;
(iii) a security;
(iv) a share;
(v) a partnership interest;
(vi) an interest in a limited liability company;
(vii) a membership interest; or
(viii) any participation, right, or other equivalent, however designated and of any character; and
(B) includes, without limitation, any security convertible into an ownership interest and right, warrant, or option to acquire ownership interests.
===
This seems to mean that if a company is public and someone from China owns a share, or if the company accepts VC money and anyone from any country that is declared an "adversary" was an investor in the fund, that company now is fair game for falling under government control.
I'm not a lawyer or legislative expert so it would be great to hear from people who are who can confirm or deny that this bill is actually a giant power grab, either intentionally or by sloppy drafting.
If this bill has the effect that I'm afraid it might, everyone in tech (and outside of tech too) should be very concerned.
On the other hand, it isn't restricted to actual holdings, since it expressly encompasses not only indirect controlling holdings, but also potential future direct or indirect controlling holdings as a basis for unlimited mitigation measures, so in that sense its even broader than you paint it.