Material U.S. legal and regulatory developments — August 22, 2026. Four developments released late on August 20–21 meet the materiality threshold for cross-border business, sanctions, foreign investment, corporate compliance, and international trade.

Primary sources: OFAC — Venezuela General License 61; Venezuela General License 62. Issued August 21, 2026.

On August 21, OFAC issued Venezuela General Licenses 61 and 62, representing a substantial liberalization of the Venezuela sanctions framework for the telecommunications sector.

General License 61 authorizes transactions otherwise prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations — including transactions with the Government of Venezuela, CONATEL, and CANTV — when ordinarily incident and necessary to supply U.S.-origin or U.S.-person telecommunications goods, technology, software, and services. The authorization expressly covers: equipment and network infrastructure; software and cloud services; interconnection and roaming; logistics and insurance; capacity and infrastructure leases; satellite bandwidth; fiber infrastructure; and submarine cables.

Contractual conditions are unusually specific. A contract with the Venezuelan government under GL 61 must generally be governed by the law of a U.S. state or other U.S. jurisdiction, with dispute resolution in the United States, United Kingdom, France, or Singapore. Suppliers using the license must report transaction details to the State Department 10 days after the first transaction and every 90 days thereafter. Transactions involving persons in or organized under Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or China — or entities owned, controlled by, or in joint ventures with them — remain excluded, as do blocked vessels and certain non-commercial payment structures. Separate FCC, Team Telecom, and BIS requirements continue to apply.

General License 62 goes further in relation to future investment. It authorizes due diligence, negotiations, bids, MOUs, and other contingent contracts for new telecommunications investment in Venezuela, including expansion of existing operations, new service providers, and new joint ventures. However, actual performance or consummation of the investment remains expressly conditional on obtaining separate OFAC authorization.

Legal and commercial significance: This is a meaningful opening for telecom operators, satellite companies, cable and infrastructure providers, cloud and software businesses, equipment suppliers, infrastructure funds, and lenders. The governing-law and forum requirements in GL 61 are structurally unusual for a sanctions general license and must be built directly into transaction documents. The GL 62 authorization for contingent investment activity — without yet permitting closing — creates a defined legal pathway for diligence and deal structuring that did not previously exist.

Practice considerations: Transaction documents should be drafted specifically around the GL 61 governing-law and forum requirements, OFAC reporting obligations, excluded-country counterparty provisions, applicable export controls, and an authorization condition precedent where the transaction falls under GL 62. A GL 62 MOU or acquisition agreement must not permit closing, funding, or implementation before the separate OFAC license is obtained. Counsel should also map the interaction between GL 61/62 and any applicable BIS export license requirements, FCC international section 214 authorizations, and Team Telecom review obligations.

OFAC — August 21 Venezuela General License action | General License 61 | General License 62

Primary source: OFAC — Russia-related General License 131I. Issued August 20, 2026.

OFAC's General License 131I, issued August 20, supersedes GL 131H and extends through 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 19, 2026 the authorization for negotiations and entry into contingent contracts concerning the sale, disposition, or transfer of Lukoil International GmbH and its majority-owned subsidiaries. The license also authorizes maintenance and wind-down activities for LIG entities through the same date.

The license does not authorize the actual acquisition or transfer. Any agreement must expressly condition performance on separate OFAC authorization. OFAC states that, when evaluating a future sale license, it expects the transaction at minimum to: completely sever LIG's ties with Lukoil; place amounts owed to Lukoil into a blocked account subject to U.S. jurisdiction until sanctions are lifted; and avoid providing Lukoil an upfront windfall through mechanisms such as asset or share swaps. OFAC also anticipates requiring purchasers to obtain review before subsequently divesting material LIG assets.

For non-U.S. buyers, OFAC states that non-U.S. persons generally do not face E.O. 14024 sanctions exposure for activity that is authorized for U.S. persons under GL 131I, provided they comply with its conditions. No funds may be transferred to a person or account located in Russia.

Legal and commercial significance: Private-equity funds, strategic energy buyers, banks, and sovereign and infrastructure investors evaluating Lukoil's non-Russian assets now have additional time for legal, financial, and operational diligence. The OFAC guidance on what a future sale license will require — complete severance, blocked-account mechanics, no upfront windfall — effectively sets the structural parameters for any viable transaction.

Practice considerations: Transaction agreements should be structured as expressly OFAC-contingent, with blocked-account mechanics, sanctions termination rights, long-stop dates, and provisions dealing with subsequent asset sales. Purchase-price structures that provide value directly back to Lukoil require particularly careful sanctions analysis. Non-U.S. buyers should document their compliance with GL 131I conditions to preserve the non-U.S. person carve-out from E.O. 14024 exposure.

OFAC — General License 131I | OFAC — FAQ 1224 on Lukoil divestments

Primary source: DOJ — United States v. TikTok Inc. et al. Settlement announcement, August 21, 2026.

On August 21, DOJ announced a $400 million settlement with TikTok, ByteDance, and affiliated entities resolving federal litigation concerning compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and its implementing regulations. TikTok is to pay $300 million immediately and an additional $100 million upon entry of an order vacating the prior consent decree involving predecessor Musical.ly. DOJ describes it as one of the largest COPPA recoveries obtained. The resolved claims remain allegations and there has been no determination of liability.

DOJ specifically noted that, during the litigation, TikTok made substantial changes to its ownership, management, compliance functions, and privacy practices — including stronger safeguards for younger users, age-related controls, and parental oversight. That aspect of the settlement is an important corporate-compliance signal in addition to the monetary amount.

Legal and commercial significance: This settlement establishes a new benchmark for COPPA enforcement exposure. Consumer platforms, social-media companies, gaming businesses, apps, and foreign technology groups serving U.S. users should treat children's-data compliance as a potentially nine-figure enforcement risk. The DOJ's acknowledgment of TikTok's remediation steps also signals that demonstrable compliance improvements — even after a problem is identified — are a meaningful factor in enforcement outcomes.

Practice considerations: M&A and investment diligence for consumer-facing platforms should examine: age-assurance architecture; parental-consent processes; children's-data flows and retention practices; deletion and data-minimization procedures; third-party SDK and vendor access to children's data; and historical regulatory orders or consent decrees. For foreign technology companies with U.S. user bases, the settlement reinforces that COPPA applies regardless of the operator's country of incorporation and that FTC and DOJ enforcement coordination is active.

DOJ — TikTok/ByteDance $400 million COPPA settlement

Primary source: Commerce — Final Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Silicon Metal from Australia and Norway. Effective August 21, 2026.

Commerce issued final antidumping and countervailing-duty orders effective August 21 covering silicon metal from Australia and Norway, following affirmative findings by both Commerce and the ITC.

CVD cash-deposit rates: 32.57% (Australia); 17.27% (Norway).
AD cash-deposit rates: 6.16% (Australia); 2.47% (Norway).

The written scope covers silicon metal containing at least 85% but less than 99.99% silicon and less than 4% iron. Semiconductor-grade silicon containing at least 99.99% silicon is excluded. Cash-deposit and suspension-of-liquidation requirements now resume under the respective orders, subject to the detailed provisional-measures rules governing earlier entries.

Legal and commercial significance: The simultaneous imposition of both AD and CVD orders on the same product from the same countries creates a layered compliance obligation. The combined effective rate for Australian silicon metal (approximately 38.73%) is substantially higher than the Norwegian combined rate (approximately 19.74%), which may redirect sourcing patterns within the affected supply chains.

Practice considerations: U.S. importers, industrial manufacturers, and companies with long-term silicon-metal supply agreements should recalculate landed costs and review importer-of-record, duty-adjustment, and final-assessment provisions in existing contracts. Because both AD and CVD orders apply, compliance models must track the separate obligations under each order rather than treating the trade remedy as a single tariff. Importers should also review whether any entries during the provisional-measures period require adjustment under the final order rates.

Commerce — Silicon Metal CVD Orders | Commerce — Silicon Metal Antidumping Orders