Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

US Commerce Department Identifies Prohibited Transactions Involving WeChat and TikTok

By Peter Jeydel, Martin Willner, Wendy Wysong, Ed Krauland, Jack Hayes, Meredith Rathbone & Brian Egan on September 20, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On September 18, 2020, the US Commerce Department announced the prohibited transactions (which would be effective as of September 20, subject to a court-ordered suspension discussed below) aimed at limiting the use of WeChat (and possibly also TikTok) within the United States. These prohibitions may have some effect outside the United States as well. Technology companies, Internet infrastructure companies, financial institutions, and other companies that support these apps should take particular note since the prohibitions are directed at business-to- business engagement, as opposed to individual users of these apps. However, users should consider that their ability to continue to use WeChat in particular within the United States may become severely restricted, and perhaps eventually eliminated. The Commerce Department’s September 18 announcement explains that these prohibitions are intended to “protect users in the U.S. by eliminating access to these applications and significantly reducing their functionality.”

As background, on August 6, President Trump issued Executive Orders 13942 and 13943, directing the Secretary of Commerce to identify, within 45 days, specific types of prohibited transactions related to ByteDance Ltd. (including TikTok) and WeChat. See our earlier blog post for more detail. In two Notifications issued on September 18 (the WeChat notice is available here, and the ByteDance / TikTok notice is here), the Commerce Department identified a broad set of business-to-business transactions involving WeChat and ByteDance / TikTok that would be prohibited under US law.

Importantly, the timing for these prohibitions is different for each of the two Notifications.

  • The WeChat prohibitions were to take effect on September 20. However, they were temporarily blocked by a preliminary injunction issued by a US federal magistrate judge on September 19. The outcome of this litigation remains uncertain.
  • The limited ByteDance / TikTok prohibitions that were slated to take effect on September 20 were suspended by the Commerce Department until September 27 at 11:59 p.m. eastern. In a press release issued after the Notifications themselves, the Commerce Department stated that this delay was provided “in light of recent positive developments . . . at the direction of President Trump.” The effective date of most of the ByteDance / TikTok prohibitions as stated in the Notification is not until November 12, 2020, which would align with the 90-day period for divestment of TikTok in the United States that was ordered by the President on August 14. A proposed divestment or other type of partnership to operate TikTok within the United States is currently under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). President Trump stated that he has given the most recent proposed deal for TikTok his “blessing,” but the CFIUS process is not yet complete; nor has the deal closed. Commerce’s press release states that “the President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.” The Chinese government has also indicated that any such deal would be subject to its approval as well.

Prohibited Transactions

Most of the prohibitions announced in the Notifications apply only to the provision of support for these apps “within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories,” although some of the restrictive language may impact activity involving these apps outside the United States as well. These prohibitions only apply to certain “business-to-business” transactions.

The WeChat Notification includes a prohibition on providing services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments to or from parties within the land or maritime borders of the United States and its territories.

The prohibitions identified in the Notifications for both ByteDance / TikTok and WeChat are as follows:

  1. Distribution and maintenance services: Services to distribute or maintain the TikTok or WeChat mobile application, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store, or any online marketplace where mobile users within the land or maritime borders of the United States and its territories may download or update applications for use on their mobile devices. This is the only prohibition relating to TikTok that, according to the Notification, is to take effect prior to November 12 – this prohibition as it relates to TikTok is currently set to take effect on September 27 at 11:59 p.m., subject to the resolution of the CFIUS process as discussed above.
  2. Internet hosting services: Internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok or WeChat mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories. Internet hosting service is defined as “a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of one or more websites or Internet services. Services may include but are not limited to file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.”
  3. Content delivery network services: Content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok or WeChat mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories. A content delivery service is defined as “a service that copies, saves, and delivers content, for a fee, from geographically dispersed servers to end-users for the purposes of enabling faster delivery of content.”
  4. Internet transit or peering services: Directly contracted or arranged Internet transit or peering services enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok or WeChat mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories. Internet transit service means “a service where a network operator provides connectivity, transport and routing for another network, enabling them to reach broader portions of the Internet. A transit provider’s routers also announce to other networks that they can carry traffic to the network that has purchased transit.” Peering “means a relationship between Internet service providers (ISP) where the parties directly interconnect to exchange Internet traffic, most often on a no-cost basis.”
  5. Utilization of code, functions, or services in US software or services: Any utilization of the TikTok or WeChat mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories.

This fifth prohibition is particularly broad, and less clear than the others. The prohibition on use of TikTok or WeChat in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the US could potentially be intended to restrict use of these apps outside the US to the extent such use would relate to other types of software or services that were developed in the US or that are accessible in the US. Given that a great many types of US and non-US digital software and services are developed and/or accessible in the US, this provision will likely be a focus of concern within industry and among other stakeholders and would benefit from clarification by the Commerce Department.

There are important limitations on this prohibition, including that it does not apply to “activities related to mobile applications intended for distribution, installation or use outside of the United States by any person and all ancillary activities which are ordinarily incident to, and necessary for, the distribution, installation, and use of mobile applications outside of the United States. This includes use by US persons abroad as well as services provided by US persons abroad.” But for any transaction involving TikTok or WeChat not relating to mobile apps, persons outside the United States should assess whether any of these five restrictions could apply if one of the listed linkages to the United States is present. As with US export controls and economic sanctions, this may call for due diligence now to reduce risks should the prohibitions go into full effect.

Excluded Activities

In addition to being limited to business-to-business transactions, the identified prohibitions do not apply to the following activities:

  1. Payment of wages, salaries, and benefit packages to employees or contractors.
  2. The exchange between or among TikTok or WeChat mobile application users of personal or business information using the TikTok or WeChat mobile application. For WeChat, this includes the transferring and receiving of funds.
  3. Activities related to mobile applications intended for distribution, installation or use outside of the United States by any person and all ancillary activities which are ordinarily incident to, and necessary for, the distribution, installation, and use of mobile applications outside of the United States. This includes use by US persons abroad as well as services provided by US persons abroad.
  4. The storing of TikTok or WeChat mobile application user data in the United States.

The Notifications clarify that other transactions with Tencent Holdings Ltd. or ByteDance Ltd. or their subsidiaries are permitted unless identified as prohibited or otherwise contrary to law. With regard to both ByteDance / TikTok and WeChat, the Commerce Department has left open the possibility that it could identify additional prohibited transactions in the future pursuant to separate public notices like these. Commerce’s September 18 press release also states that similar restrictions could be considered for “another app somehow outside the scope” of these current restrictions “should the U.S. Government determine that WeChat’s or TikTok’s illicit behavior is being replicated by” such an app.

Photo of Peter Jeydel Peter Jeydel

Peter Jeydel‘s practice focuses on US export controls and economic sanctions, including the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and sanctions regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)…

Peter Jeydel‘s practice focuses on US export controls and economic sanctions, including the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and sanctions regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the State Department. His practice spans all aspects of these regimes, including counseling, compliance, transactional advice, licensing and opinions, disclosures, and enforcement actions. He has also represented companies and individuals seeking de-listing from OFAC’s sanctions list. In addition, Pete has assisted clients in anti-corruption matters, including under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and has experience handling reviews and investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Read Pete’s full bio.

Read more about Peter JeydelEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Ed Krauland Ed Krauland

Edward J. Krauland focuses on export controls/economic sanctions. Ed’s extensive experience includes representing clients on matters involving US and multilateral economic sanctions, defense and nuclear export controls, dual-use export controls under the EAR, anti-boycott compliance, internal investigations and enforcement work, and review of…

Edward J. Krauland focuses on export controls/economic sanctions. Ed’s extensive experience includes representing clients on matters involving US and multilateral economic sanctions, defense and nuclear export controls, dual-use export controls under the EAR, anti-boycott compliance, internal investigations and enforcement work, and review of government procurement regulations in the cross-border context. His practice spans all aspects of these laws, including counseling, compliance work, transactional advice, licensing and opinion work, internal reviews, disclosures, and enforcement actions. He has served as co-chair of the International Trade Committee of the ABA Section of International Law and Practice. He is former Chairman of an ABA-wide Task Force on Gatekeeper Regulation (anti-money laundering compliance), and senior adviser to the ABA Section of International Law and Practice’s anti-money laundering committee.

Read Ed’s full bio.

Read more about Ed KraulandEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jack Hayes Jack Hayes

Jack Hayes has extensive experience providing clients with advice and assistance under ITAR and EAR, as well as US economic sanctions and anti-boycott regulations. Jack frequently handles complex export control matters, including voluntary disclosures, internal investigations of apparent export control violations, pre-closing and…

Jack Hayes has extensive experience providing clients with advice and assistance under ITAR and EAR, as well as US economic sanctions and anti-boycott regulations. Jack frequently handles complex export control matters, including voluntary disclosures, internal investigations of apparent export control violations, pre-closing and post-closing acquisition export compliance due diligence, export control audits, and assessments of compliance obligations and risks in accordance with relevant international trade regulations. He also provides guidance on brokering requirements and reporting obligations for certain fees, commissions, and political contributions related to sales of defense articles and defense services, prepares export and reexport license and agreement applications for submission, undertakes commodity jurisdiction and export classification analyses of items and services under the ITAR and EAR, drafts registration material change notifications, and develops compliance policies, programs, and training materials.

Read Jack’s full bio.

Read more about Jack HayesEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Meredith Rathbone Meredith Rathbone

Meredith Rathbone focuses on export controls and economic sanctions, and has assisted clients in the energy, manufacturing, telecommunications, information security, banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, and service industries, among many others, in navigating the requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms…

Meredith Rathbone focuses on export controls and economic sanctions, and has assisted clients in the energy, manufacturing, telecommunications, information security, banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, and service industries, among many others, in navigating the requirements of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and US sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and US Department of State. She regularly assists companies in developing compliance policies, conducting internal investigations, performing training, and conducting due diligence in M&A transactions. She has represented individuals and companies facing civil and criminal investigations in this area, and has also represented clients in their efforts to be removed from OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs). She is a frequent writer and speaker on export controls and sanctions topics. She is the co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Committee, and also serves on the Sanctions Subcommittee of the State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy.

Read Meredith’s full bio.

Read more about Meredith RathboneEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Brian Egan Brian Egan

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and…

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and issues of public international law. He has worked in various senior legal positions for the US government, giving him keen insight into domestic and international legal matters that influence US government national security and foreign relations policies and programs. Before joining Steptoe, Brian served as the Legal Adviser to the US Department of State, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, Deputy White House Counsel, and Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence with the US Department of the Treasury. Brian has regularly appeared in public fora to speak on international legal issues, including testifying before Congress, public speaking engagements, and panel presentations.

Read Brian’s full bio.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    International Compliance Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo