Huawei sues US government claiming hardware ban is unconstitutional

Huawei has filed suit against the US government, claiming that its National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) banning US government agencies from buying Huawei hardware and services.

The company claimed in a press conference at its headquarters in Shenzhen, China that it had been left with no choice after the US government had failed to present "any evidence" to back-up its claims that Huawei hardware represents a security threat.

"US 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," said Guo Ping, one of Huawei's chairmen, in a statement.

He continued: "This ban not only is unlawful, but also restricts Huawei from engaging in fair competition, ultimately harming US consumers. We look forward to the court's verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people."

Huawei's complaint is not just about the direct ban on Huawei hardware in US communications networks, but also the bar under the NDAA on "contracting with or awarding grants or loans to third parties who buy Huawei equipment or services, without any executive or judicial process".

By extension, therefore, US communications companies are effectively barred under the NDAA from buying Huawei products and services.

This, the company adds, "violates the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Due Process Clause. It also violates the Separation-of-Powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, because Congress is both making the law, and attempting to adjudicate and execute it".

Song Liuping, Huawei's chief legal officer, claimed that "section 889 [of the NDAA] is based on numerous false, unproven, and untested propositions. Contrary to the statute's premise, Huawei is not owned, controlled, or influenced by the Chinese government. Moreover, Huawei has an excellent security record and program. No contrary evidence has been offered."

Huawei claims that its hardware is between 15 per cent and 40 per cent cheaper than rivals, potentially saving $20 billion or more over the next four years.

The case, said Emily Taylor, a Fellow of the international relations think tank Chatham House, should bring to the surface evidence around claims made by both the US government and Huawei - the US government that Huawei is a cat's paw for the Chinese government, and Huawei's denials.

"It is a very bold move [to sue the US government]… rumours have circulated for many years about what precisely the nature of the relationship between Huawei and the Chinese state is. Now we will see evidence brought, presumably on both sides, addressing those points," Taylor told BBC News.