Skip to main content

Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei Technologies Co Ltd on Thursday confirmed it is suing the U.S. government over a section of a defence bill passed into law last year that restricted its business in the United States.

Huawei said it had filed a complaint in a federal court in Texas challenging the constitutionality of Section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a section signed into law by the U.S. president in August that banned federal agencies and their contractors from procuring its equipment and services.

“The U.S. Congress has repeatedly failed to produce any evidence to support its restrictions on Huawei products. We are compelled to take this legal action as a proper and last resort,” Huawei Rotating Chairman Guo Ping said in a statement.

Story continues below advertisement

A pedestrian talks on the phone while walking past a Huawei store on Jan. 29, 2019 in Beijing.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

“This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming U.S. consumers. We look forward to the court’s verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people.”

While Huawei had very little market share in the U.S. telecoms market before the bill, it viewed Section 889 as a stumbling block to addressing broader problems with Washington as its existence prevented any steps toward reconciliation.

“Lifting the NDAA ban will give the U.S. Government the flexibility it needs to work with Huawei and solve real security issues,” Guo said.

The privately owned firm has embarked on a public relations and legal offensive over the past two months as Washington lobbies allies to abandon Huawei when building fifth-generation (5G) mobile networks, centring on a 2017 Chinese law requiring companies co-operate with national intelligence work.

Founder and Chief Executive Ren Zhengfei has said Huawei, the world’s biggest telecoms gear maker, has never and will never share data with China’s government.

RETRIBUTION

The legal action and public relations outreach compare with a more restrained response in December emphasizing “trust in justice” when its chief financial officer, Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Vancouver at U.S. request.

The United States has accused Meng – Ren’s daughter – of bank and wire fraud related to breaches of trade sanctions against Iran.

Story continues below advertisement

Huawei’s legal action comes after Meng appeared in court on Wednesday during which her lawyer expressed concerns that the allegations have a political character, raising U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments on the case.

Separately, Meng, who is fighting extradition, is suing Canada’s government for procedural wrongs in her arrest.

The case had strained relations with China, which this week accused two arrested Canadians of stealing state secrets in a move widely seen as retribution for Meng’s arrest.

While Meng is under house arrest in Vancouver, it is unclear where the two Canadians are being detained in China. Sources previously told Reuters that at least one of the Canadians did not have access to legal representation.

CHANGE OF TUNE

Ren met international media for the first time in several years in mid-January, calling U.S. President Donald Trump “great” and refraining from commenting directly on Meng’s case. Shifting tone, Ren in mid-February said Meng’s arrest was politically motivated and “not acceptable”.

Long before Trump initiated a trade war with China, Huawei’s activities were under scrutiny by U.S. authorities, according to interviews with 10 people familiar with the Huawei probes and documents related to the investigations seen by Reuters.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies