US drafts rule to close China's remote access to AI chips

Commerce is reported to be preparing controls on overseas data centres renting compute to Chinese firms — a gap that exists because export law regulates goods, while compute is sold as a service.

Read this story in: Français · Español · Deutsch

The US Commerce Department is drafting an export rule that would require overseas data centres to block Chinese firms from remotely accessing advanced American AI chips, according to reporting by The Information. A draft could be circulated to industry as early as September, and is reported to include know-your-customer obligations for cloud and data centre operators.

The gap being addressed is structural rather than accidental. Export controls regulate the movement of goods across borders. They attach to a chip leaving the country, and at that they work reasonably well. Compute, though, is not sold as a good — it is rented as a service, and a customer in Shenzhen renting capacity in Singapore has moved no controlled item anywhere. Chinese firms including ByteDance, Alibaba and Tencent have reportedly used capacity in third countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Japan on exactly that basis.

Closing it means regulating a transaction rather than a shipment, which is considerably harder to draft and much harder to enforce. It requires operators in other jurisdictions to establish the nationality of the entity behind an account, in an industry built on abstracting away who is renting what.

The immediate obstacle is authority. Export-control lawyers quoted in reporting on the proposal argue that the Bureau of Industry and Security has no statutory power to police remote access until Congress grants it. The Remote Access Security Act, which would supply that authority, passed the House 369-22 in January and has sat in the Senate Banking Committee since. A rule issued without that footing would be a standing invitation to litigate, and the firms with the resources to litigate are the ones it would bind.

The wider question is whether controls of this shape can work against a service at all. Each closed route has so far produced a new intermediary rather than an absence of access, and the enforcement burden lands on foreign operators with little reason to carry it.