New Export Rules Target 'Monopoly Licenses,' Requiring Competition Review for Tech Exports

The newly proposed License Monopoly Prevention Act of 2025 is designed to stop the government from accidentally (or intentionally) granting single companies exclusive rights to sell certain controlled technology to specific foreign entities. Basically, it’s a push for fair play in the high-stakes world of technology export licenses.

What’s the Big Deal with Export Licenses?

If a foreign company is on the Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Entity List—usually for national security reasons—U.S. companies need a special license to sell them specific technology. The problem, according to Congress, is that sometimes the BIS grants a "monopoly license," giving one U.S. company the sole right to sell that product to that listed entity. The bill (SEC. 2) explicitly states that this practice creates an appearance of favoritism, distorts markets, and generally makes the U.S. look bad to its allies.

The New Rulebook: Competitive Market Review

This bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (SEC. 3) to require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security to perform a competitive market review before issuing a license for specific controlled technology. They must also consult with the International Trade Administration (ITA) on the matter. Think of it as a mandatory check to ensure they aren't crowning a king.

To issue a sole license, the Under Secretary must certify to Congress that one of two conditions is met: either no other company has applied to export that same technology to that same end user, or, if other applications exist, the competing technologies are considered "different enough" to be separate products. This is the core change. For the companies currently competing for these lucrative contracts, this means the playing field just got leveled. If you are a U.S. tech firm, you now have a formal process to ensure your competitor isn't getting a sweetheart deal that shuts you out of the market entirely.

What Happens After the First License is Issued?

This is where the bill gets interesting for long-term competition. If BIS issues a license to one company, they must approve any subsequent application for the same technology going to the same end user (SEC. 3). The only way they can deny a follow-on license is if approving it creates a new, unique risk that wasn't present when the original license was issued. This provision is designed to prevent the initial license holder from locking out competitors indefinitely.

However, this introduces a bit of a gray area. Both the initial certification process—where the Under Secretary decides if competing technologies are "different enough"—and the follow-on denial clause—where they decide if a "new, unique risk" exists—grant significant subjective authority to the Under Secretary. While the intent is to prevent market manipulation, these subjective definitions could still be used to favor certain companies or unintentionally slow down the process for others. For busy executives, this means regulatory clarity might still depend heavily on how the Commerce Department chooses to interpret phrases like “different enough.”

Overall, the bill is a net positive for market fairness and transparency, aiming to ensure that export controls are driven by security concerns, not corporate favoritism. It’s a move toward making sure that when the government regulates who can sell what overseas, they aren't inadvertently creating a monopoly at home.