Removal from the BIS Boycott Requester List is a relatively recent development in U.S. antiboycott enforcement. For more than two decades United States persons that receive a boycott request fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country friendly to the U.S. or against any U.S. person, have been required to report to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s (“BIS”) Office of Antiboycott Compliance (“OAC”). This regulatory requirement in the antiboycott provisions of BIS’s Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), was codified into law with the enactment of the Anti-Boycott Act of 2018 (the “Anti-Boycott Act”), 50 U.S.C. § 4841 et seq. However, it wasn’t until March 2024 that BIS began publishing a “Boycott Requester List,” which publicly identifies potential sources of such requests made available by the reports to the agency, in order to assist U.S. businesses in complying with the EAR’s antiboycott provisions in 15 C.F.R. Part 760.

Against the backdrop of increased enforcement by BIS of these provisions in recent years, exporters, financial institutions, and other service providers rely on this Boycott Requester List to assist in their compliance efforts. Consequently, a business whose name ends up on the List is likely to have its operations—especially cross-border transactions—considerably impacted. With BIS relying on U.S. persons’ mandatory reports pursuant to § 760.5 of the EAR to assemble the List, there is an appreciable risk for error and over-compliance, especially in consideration of the significant administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for any violations. Nevertheless, listed businesses can petition their removal from the List with OAC, and indeed BIS routinely removes many listed businesses since the list is generally updated on a quarterly basis.

This article explains removal from the BIS Boycott Requester List, along with certain practitioner tips for counsel. It is intended for in-house and outside counsel evaluating removal strategies; it is not a substitute for case-specific legal advice.

Step 1—Investigating the Reasons for Inclusion on the Boycott Requester List

Experienced counsel will typically first investigate why a business was added to the Boycott Requester List to begin with, as it speaks directly to overall strategy for the removal process. Entities are added to the List because they’ve been identified as having made a boycott-related request in reports received by BIS in accordance with the reporting requirements for U.S. persons in 15 C.F.R. § 760.5. Therefore, the investigation should seek to determine whether the business in question was reported to BIS because its conduct was arguably within the scope of such requirements, or the addition was potentially the result of error on the part of the agency. The results of such an investigation will assist in strategizing how best to conduct the removal process before OAC.

Scope of the Reporting Requirements

In conducting an internal investigation to determine the potential reasons for the addition of a business to the Boycott Requester List, it is important to identify who may have reported the business and why. The term U.S. person is very broad in scope in § 760.1 of the EAR, including for example “controlled in fact” foreign subsidiaries, affiliates, or other permanent foreign establishments of any entities organized under the laws of the United States. Therefore, even though it may appear that a foreign business does not engage in any dealings involving the U.S., other foreign entities that the business in question does deal with may satisfy this broad definition of a U.S. person that would otherwise be subject to the EAR’s reporting requirements for boycott requests.

The scope of the EAR’s reporting requirements in § 760.5 are rather extensive, and dare I say ambiguous at times (just read through the numerous examples of what is or isn’t reportable in Part 760). Nevertheless, the requirement states in short that a U.S. person who receives a request to take any action which has the effect of furthering or supporting a restrictive trade practice or boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a country friendly to the U.S. or against any U.S. person must report such request to BIS, regardless of whether the action requests is prohibited or permissible under the EAR, except as provided in § 760.5(a). Given the broad and arguably non-comprehensive scope of this requirement, a high probability for erroneous reporting remains.  

For these reasons, it is imperative to rely on the reporting requirements in § 760.5 and relevant definitions in § 760.1 in conducting an internal investigation. In addition, in the course of conducting any such investigation—especially if the business may itself be considered a U.S. person as defined in § 760.1(b)—counsel should consider also identifying any potential violations by the business of the EAR’s anti-boycott prohibitions in § 760.2. Note that I’m not going to explore those prohibitions here—the violation of which could lead to potential civil enforcement actions by BIS—or the distinct but related Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) reporting requirements for boycott requests.

FOIA Requests

Subject to certain exceptions, reports of boycott requests received by BIS are to be made available for public inspection pursuant to 15 C.F.R. § 760(c) and § 4842(b)(2) of the Anti-Boycott Act. While counsel may want to consider the submission of a FOIA request to OAC seeking disclosure to the fullest extent possible—under relevant exemptions in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)—of all relevant reports relating to the listed business as part of the internal investigation, the processing of such requests is typically very lengthy in practice. Therefore, awaiting disclosure prior to requesting removal with OAC may not be an effective strategy.

In practice, once the removal process is initiated, OAC may provide certain samples reports—not necessarily all—filed with the agency that it believes identify the requester as the source of the boycott-related requests. In any event, the basis for the listing should be specifically requested by counsel as part of the removal process before OAC, in lieu of, or in addition to, any underlying FOIA requests.

Step 2—Initiating Removal from the BIS Boycott Requester List with OAC

Neither the Anti-Boycott Act nor the EAR provide a formal process for entities on the Boycott Requester List to petition BIS’s OAC for removal from the List (in contrast to being identified on another U.S. restricted party list). However, an informal removal process is noted in the published List itself, OAC’s web-page, and also duplicated in BIS press releases that have announced additions and removals from the List since its March 2024 implementation. In this regulatory vacuum, removal practice has developed through informal OAC engagement and enforcement experience, which can be difficult for unrepresented parties to navigate.

In the removal process before OAC, options for the petitioning party generally include challenging their inclusion on the List (i.e., that it was in error), and/or attesting that they have taken credible steps to no longer request counterparties to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott. The former option is more of an uphill battle in practice, especially if the agency provides sample reports in response to the removal request. Therefore, in seeking removal and based on the results of its own internal investigation, the petitioning party may want to first attempt obtaining confirmation from OAC as to the reasons for its inclusion on the List—including requesting any sample reports the agency can disclose—before deciding which two of the foregoing options to undertake, or whether to adjust its overall approach.

Step 3—Appeals for Denial in Removal from the BIS Boycott Request List

Without the implementation of any formal regulations in relation to removal from the BIS Boycott Requester List, including for additions to or removals from, it remains unclear what other administrative remedies remain in the event of a denial by BIS of an informal removal petition. Furthermore, given the relatively recent implementation of the List, there isn’t any precedent either as for potential judicial challenges to such denials. However, denials may be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) judicial review provisions in 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (e.g., arbitrary and capricious” agency action).

The Anti-Boycott Act is part of the broader Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (“ECRA”), 50 U.S.C. Chapter 58. Although ECRA exempts the functions exercised under its Subchapter 1—which primarily relates to Export Controls as opposed to the Anti-Boycott Act in Subchapter II—from the judicial review provisions and other parts of the APA (See § 4821(a)), such exemptions do not necessarily cover administrative actions made in relation solely to the Anti-Boycott Act. Arguably, denials for removal from the Boycott Requester List would be a function exercised under Subchapter II, and not Subchapter I.

Furthermore, ECRA does provide a relevant exception for § 4843(c) of the Anti-Boycott Act from the noted APA judicial review exclusion in § 4821(a). Specifically, § 4843(c) provides that any civil penalty or administrative sanction (including any suspension or revocation of authority to export) under the enforcement related § 4843 of the Anti-Boycott Act is indeed subject to the judicial revision provisions of the APA. Being added to the Boycott Requester List is arguably a civil penalty or administrative sanction imposed under § 4843 (See also 5 U.S.C. § 551(10)), especially since §4843(d) authorizes the President to “…establish[] levels of civil penalty…”, and being added to the List is a form of penalty or sanction.

For these reasons, whether a denial of a petition to be removed from the Boycott Requester List is subject to the judicial review under the APA—or even being added to the list to begin with if a listed entity seeks to forego the administrative removal process and straight to judicial review—remain a justiciable question, and should be considered as part of any relevant strategy in seeking removal from the List. In any event, framing and preserving issues for judicial review during the administrative removal process under the APA is a legal question generally best handled by experienced counsel.

Why Strategy and Counsel Matter

While there is no requirement to retain an attorney for the administrative removal process, listed entities should be aware of several practical and legal considerations that make experienced counsel highly advisable.

• Informal OAC engagement means there is no codified process or clear appeal path, so how and when a listed business approaches OAC can meaningfully affect outcomes.
• Submissions that concede or mischaracterize boycott-related conduct can affect future enforcement posture and potential penalties under the antiboycott provisions of the EAR.
• Because BIS has not issued formal regulations governing removal, entities need to think ahead about preserving arguments for any potential APA challenge if removal is denied.

Entities considering removal from the BIS Boycott Requester List should carefully evaluate the legal, commercial, and reputational risks of remaining listed and strongly consider working with experienced counsel to navigate the informal and evolving removal process before OAC.

---

The author of this blog post is Kian Meshkat, an attorney specializing in U.S. economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-boycott matters. If you have any questions please contact him at meshkat@meshkatlaw.com. 

This article was last updated on April 7, 2026. It was originally published on January 6, 2025, and previously updated on February 6, 2026.