What changed in export control of advanced chips

Two regimes bear on a European trade in advanced accelerators: the EU dual-use regulation and the US Export Administration Regulations. Both have moved in the past year. The EU position is now relatively clear. The US position is clear on one point that matters more than any other for a trader: it is the ownership of the buyer that is examined, not where the buyer sits. This note sets out what changed. It is not legal advice; the specific transaction is a matter for counsel.

Advanced computing items fall under entry 3A090, which is listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2021/821. Annex I is the list of dual-use items whose export out of the Union requires an authorisation. The list was last amended by Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/2003 of 8 September 2025, which applies from 15 November 2025.

For a trade within the Union the relevant question is a different one. An authorisation for an intra-Union transfer is required only for items listed in Annex IV of the regulation. 3A090 is not in Annex IV. We checked this against the consolidated text of the regulation as at 15 November 2025. A sale of a 3A090 accelerator from one member state to another therefore does not require an EU transfer authorisation on the basis of the item's listing.

That is the whole of the good news, and it should not be read as "no obligations". It means that one specific EU authorisation does not apply. It says nothing about US rules, which are the subject of the rest of this note, and nothing about the buyer's own later export from the Union, which would be an Annex I export in the ordinary way.

The AI Diffusion Rule was rescinded on 13 May 2025. As of mid-2026, BIS had not issued a replacement rule. That left a gap in the published framework, but not in the underlying obligation, and on 31 May 2026 BIS issued guidance that closes the most important part of it.

The guidance states that a licence is required for a transfer to an entity that is headquartered in, or whose ultimate parent company is headquartered in, Country Group D:5 or Macau. The licence requirement applies even where the entity receiving the goods is itself located outside those places. A subsidiary registered in an EU member state, with an EU address and an EU VAT number, is treated for this purpose according to where its ultimate parent sits.

The second point is older but easily forgotten in a European context: the EAR applies to re-exports and to in-country transfers of US-origin items, including transfers between two non-US companies. A company in one member state selling a US-origin accelerator to a company in another is within the scope of the EAR for that transaction. The seller's own nationality does not remove it.

Table scrolls sideways

The practical conclusion for a seller is that the address on the buyer's letterhead is close to irrelevant. What has to be established is the ownership chain up to the ultimate parent, and where that parent is headquartered. An EU registration, an EU bank account and an EU delivery address do not answer the question; they only describe the entity at the bottom of the chain.

A screening process that meets the guidance therefore needs at least the following:

• The buyer's full corporate structure, up to the ultimate parent, with the jurisdiction of incorporation and the headquarters at each level.
• The beneficial owners, where the corporate structure alone does not make them visible.
• A signed end-user and end-use statement, naming the installation site and stating that the goods will not be re-exported without the required licences.
• A record of the screening, kept with the transaction file, so that the basis of the decision can be shown later.
• A refusal, or a licence application, where the ultimate parent is headquartered in a D:5 country or Macau. Screening that produces a positive finding and then proceeds anyway is worse than no screening, because it documents knowledge.

A buyer should expect to be asked these questions, and should treat a seller who does not ask them as a counterparty risk. The obligation under the EAR sits on the party making the transfer, and a seller who has not screened cannot later show that the buyer's parent was unknown to them.

How we handle this at GLO Corp: the counterparty and its ultimate parent company are screened before a lot is listed for that buyer, not after a price has been agreed.

1. Regulation (EU) 2021/821, consolidated text as at 15 November 2025 — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02021R0821-20251115
2. BIS guidance of 31 May 2026 — https://www.bis.gov/media/documents/bis-guidance-may-31-2026.pdf