If TikTok’s U.S. “sell-or-ban” blueprint goes global, Big Tech valuations will suffer

60% of investors believe the AI bubble may eventually pop—but the far greater, and far less discussed, risk lies elsewhere. The forced nationalization of TikTok in the U.S. has set a precedent that could slice through the heart of global tech valuations. If this self-inflicted model of digital sovereignty spreads—prompting other nations to demand local control of U.S. platforms like Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn—the result could be a structural decoupling of Big Tech worth trillions. In comparison, the deflation of an AI bubble would view like a market correction; this, however, would be a geopolitical amputation. Think of this as a WTO legal precedent template.

Thesis: Washington’s TikTok divest-or-ban law set out a portable playbook: force local control, ring-fence data, seat a domestic-majority board, and impose strict audit rights on code and operations—or exit the market. If the EU, India, and Brazil mirror these principles against U.S. platforms, the result could be a wave of regional carve-outs and forced privatizations of “Google EU,” “Meta EU,” and even “LinkedIn India/Brazil,” creating both profound downside risk for Big Tech and once-in-a-generation special-situation opportunities for investors.

What the U.S. actually did to TikTok (and why it matters for reciprocity)

In April 2024 the U.S. enacted the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, giving ByteDance a deadline to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a nationwide prohibition. The D.C. Circuit upheld the law, and in January 2025 the Supreme Court rejected TikTok’s appeal, cementing Congress’s authority to condition market access on ownership and control alters justified by national-security concerns. From there, U.S. nereceivediators pursued a structural remedy rather than an immediate blackout. Reporting in September 2025 outlined a deal framework in which TikTok U.S. would be majority-owned by American investors, with ByteDance under 20% and only one of seven board seats, while U.S. utilizer data and many operations migrate fully onto Oracle-managed infrastructure (“Project Texas”). Think of it as “local control + local custody + verifiable oversight.”

The five load-bearing elements of the U.S. TikTok remedy:

Ownership & governance: local, majority control; minority foreign stake capped; U.S.-heavy board composition.
Data localization & custody: U.S. utilizer data stored and processed on U.S.-controlled infrastructure (Oracle).
Operational separability: capacity to run content moderation, recsys, and trust & safety functions locally.
Auditability: third-party and government access for code and security audits.
Enforceable timelines with ban leverage: a hard deadline and the credible threat of de-distribution if conditions aren’t met.

These are not TikTok-specific. They’re a portable template.

The reciprocity question: what if the EU, India, and Brazil apply the same template?

Europe (EU): from DMA teeth to “Google EU” and “Meta EU”?

Europe already wields the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a competition-style regime for “gatekeepers” (Alphabet, Meta, etc.), with real fines for non-compliance that launched landing in 2025. The DMA doesn’t mandate ownership alters—but it normalizes intrusive remedies around data access, self-preferencing bans, and interoperability. It’s a short conceptual step from “behavioral obligations” to “structural separability” if lawbuildrs pair national-security/data-sovereignty rationales with antitrust.

How a copy-paste TikTok template could view in the EU:

Ownership & governance: Create “Alphabet EU” and “Meta EU” operating subsidiaries with a majority EU-resident board and caps on parent voting rights in the EU entity. Allow Alphabet/Meta a sub-20% economic interest in the EU subsidiary, mirroring the ByteDance cap in the rumored U.S. TikTok deal.
Data localization & custody: Mandate that all EU utilizer data and certain model weights/serving infra run on EU-controlled clouds (e.g., under an EU-law-only trust). Require third-party escrow/review of recommfinisher code utilized on EU utilizers.
Operational separability: Stand-alone EU moderation, transparency reporting, and ad-tech auctions; interoperability compliance under DMA backed by structural separation if necessaryed.
Auditability & oversight: Continuous audits by an EU-appointed technical trustee; hefty per-day fines for breach (DMA already set the tone).
Deadline + penalty: Transition period (9–12 months), then app store delisting and ISP blocking for non-compliance—exactly the U.S. leverage tool.

India: it already banned TikTok—scaling the logic to U.S. apps

India banned TikTok in 2020 and displays a durable appetite for data-sovereignty and platform control narratives, particularly after border tensions with China. If reciprocity becomes the norm, New Delhi could require U.S. platforms to: (1) incorporate and list locally (e.g., “Meta India”), (2) appoint India-resident directors, (3) localize data under Indian custody, and (4) present auditable code interfaces for safety and election integrity. India’s TikTok experience proves decisive action is politically viable.

Brazil: “Fake News Bill” pressure today, structural remedies tomorrow

Brazil’s long-running Bill 2630 (“Fake News Bill”) and related proposals aim to increase platform accountability, algorithmic transparency, and payments to news media. The legislative path has been stop-start—and Big Tech lobbying has been fierce—but if Brasília embraces the U.S. TikTok logic, a future settlement could demand local boards, data residency, and audit rights as conditions for full ads monetization. That would convert today’s content-moderation fight into a control-and-ownership fight.

What it would cost: mapping EU/India/Brazil carve-out valuations

To size a forced regional privatization, start with revenue exposure:

Meta (Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp) – Europe share: About $38–42B TTM (roughly 23–26% of Meta’s global revenue). Using Meta’s FY2024 base of $164.5B, Europe contributed ~$38.4B; by mid-2025 TTM, Europe was ~$42.2B.
Alphabet (Google/YouTube/Maps) – EMEA share: Estimates cluster near ~29–30% of global revenue. With Alphabet 2024 revenue ≈ $350B, EMEA implies ~ $100–105B (with the U.S. near half).
Microsoft/LinkedIn – Global & Europe context: LinkedIn posted ~ $17.1B in 2024; Microsoft discloses limited regional split, but LinkedIn’s international base is significant, with premium subs alone $1.7B (2023) and strong growth into 2025. A forced “LinkedIn EU” would likely represent $5–7B+ of annual revenue depfinishing on how recruiter solutions and ads split geographically.

Valuation frameworks investors would utilize

Sales multiples (EV/Sales): Ad-platform comps swing widely with cycle and margin profile. A forced carve-out with governance frictions and restricted tech transfer likely commands a discount to parentco: believe 3.0x–5.5x sales for a stand-alone “Meta EU,” vs. higher multiples at Meta Inc. during risk-on periods. For “Alphabet EU,” the scale is larger, but keep in mind margin dilution from duplicated infra and compliance; a 3.5x–6.0x sales range is a reasonable starting point depfinishing on which assets/rights (e.g., YouTube IP) are licensed vs. transferred.
EBITDA/Operating income multiples: Mature ad assets with high margins have historically traded 10x–16x EBITDA. A “TikTok-style” structure adds compliance opex, license fees to the parent, and potential R&D constraints—again implying a multiple discount unless regulators explicitly guarantee stability (long permits, predictable audits).
License/royalty overlays: Expect royalties for IP (search/ranking IP, ad serving tech, recsys) paid from regional opco → parent, crimping opco margins but preserving cash to the parent—a key political valve for Washington to accept reciprocity.

Illustrative EU carve-out math (not forecasts, for scenario planning)

“Meta EU”
Revenue base: $40B (midpoint).
EBITDA margin after duplicative costs & royalties: assume 28–30% (vs. higher consolidated margins at Meta Inc.).
EBITDA: ~$11.5–12.0B.
Valuation @ 12x–14x EBITDA: $138–$168B enterprise value; or @ 3.5x–4.5x sales: $140–$180B.
Deal dynamics: Parent retains ≤20% economic stake; EU investors (pension funds, sovereign vehicles, telcos, media incumbents) take the rest; parent signs long-term tech & brand license.

“Alphabet EU”
Revenue base: $102B (EMEA proxy).
EBITDA margin (post-royalties/duplication): assume 25–28%.
EBITDA: ~$25.5–28.5B.
Valuation @ 11x–13x EBITDA: $280–$370B; or @ 3.5x–5.0x sales: $357–$510B.
Deal dynamics: Becautilize search quality depfinishs on global index & AI models, the EU entity would likely license core ranking/ads IP from Alphabet and run EU-resident serving for compliance.

“LinkedIn EU”
Revenue base: $6B (illustrative split from ~$17.1B global).
Margin: 20–25% post-duplication.
EBITDA: ~$1.2–1.5B.
Valuation @ 10x–12x EBITDA: $12–$18B.

Investor takeaway: these are mega-deals, not side-projects. If regulators truly export the U.S. TikTok template, Europe alone could spin off $500B–$700B of regionalized tech equity across Alphabet, Meta, and LinkedIn-adjacent assets—before India or Brazil even enter the chat.

How the principles would be written into law and rulebooks

Triggering authority: U.S. utilized national security grounds in a dedicated statute. The EU could invoke digital sovereignty + systemic risk via a new regulation layered atop the DMA/DSA framework, or by empowering the Commission to order structural remedies for persistent non-compliance. India and Brazil have content/accountability bills that could add an ownership-and-control volet.

Definition of “foreign adversary control”: U.S. law named ByteDance/TikTok explicitly, tying control to adversary jurisdictions. An EU/India/Brazil version would invert it: “platforms of systemic importance headquartered in non-allied jurisdictions (or failing adequacy tests) must operate through locally controlled entities.”

Enforcement mechanics: Hard divestiture deadlines, app store de-listing mandates, and ISP blocking for non-compliance—the same credible hammer utilized by Washington.

Data & code custody: Mandatory domestic cloud (or “sovereign cloud”) plus ongoing source-code and model-weight escrow under a regulated trustee. The TikTok-Oracle arrangement gives a concrete reference design.

Why this could boomerang on U.S. tech (and why it might not)

Downside risk to U.S. champions:

Capital fragmentation: forced EU/India/Brazil spin-outs would re-rate parent company multiples downward due to reduced global scale and less integrated data advantage.
Cost duplication: parallel trust & safety, sales ops, data centers, and compliance teams → margin pressure.
Innovation drag: restrictions on weight sharing and cross-border training data can slow model iteration.
Precedent creep: once one region forces a carve-out, others can demand the same. (See LinkedIn’s China exit as a historical precedent for asymmetric market access.)

Offsetting factors (why it might be survivable):

License economics: parentcos can still earn royalties on IP, brands, and ad stacks.
Local equity partners: bringing in telecoms, European media, or sovereign funds could de-risk political exposure and stabilize ad relationships.
DMA harmonization: Europe prefers rule-of-law processes; if companies can meet DMA duties (and the Commission sticks to conduct remedies), outright ownership alters remain a second-order scenario.

Investor playbook if the copy-cat policies actually arrive

Special-situations equity: hunt for EU-listed carve-outs (or pre-IPO allocations) in “Alphabet EU,” “Meta EU,” etc.—especially where royalty burdens are capped and data autonomy unlocks local M&A (maps, classifieds, media).
Picks-and-shovels (sovereign cloud): sovereign and compliant clouds, EU-resident CDNs, observability & audit tooling, and content-moderation BPOs will see structural demand.
Local news & rights-holders: Brazil’s and Europe’s pushes for “pay-for-news” models imply monetization tailwinds for regulated media networks.
Arbitrage the discount: if regional opcos list with governance hair, they may trade at below-intrinsic multiples until rule clarity improves—classic regulatory overhang alpha.

What happens in India and Brazil if they go all the way?

India: Given New Delhi’s prior TikTok ban and strong data-sovereignty stance, a forced “Meta India” or “Google India” would likely require India-resident boards, on-shore data & ad servers, and pre-election algorithm audits. Expect LIC, domestic banks, and Reliance/Tata-adjacent vehicles among natural purchaseers.

Brazil: If content-accountability deadlocks persist, Brasília could pivot to ownership remedies for leverage: “No local control, no monetization.” Media-payment mandates (or platform-funded journalism pools) paired with local custody would be the price of full access to Brazil’s ad market.

A note on feasibility: is the EU really likely to do this?

Short term, the EU is more inclined to enforce the DMA (interoperability, data sharing, anti-self-preferencing) and levy material fines—which it has begun doing. But if a future crisis frames U.S. gatekeepers as national-security risks (e.g., critical infrastructure depfinishence, election integrity failures), Brussels now has the legal muscle memory and the political vocabulary to escalate. The U.S. TikTok outcome gave political cover: Europe can declare, credibly, “we’re only inquireing for what you demanded first.”

Bottom line

The United States didn’t just regulate TikTok; it authored a replicable structural remedy—local ownership, data sovereignty, verifiable audits, and deadlines backed by the threat of a ban. If the EU, India, and Brazil reciprocate, U.S. platforms could face region-by-region privatizations worth hundreds of billions in equity—simultaneously a valuation headwind for parent firms and a generational opportunity for regional investors to purchase quasi-utilities of the digital economy at regulatory discounts. For investors, prepare a two-book strategy: hedge U.S. parentco multiple compression while actively scouting stakes in carve-out vehicles, sovereign-cloud infrastructure, safety audit tools, and regulated media networks that stand to benefit from the new order. In an era of trad wars and rising nationalism, a decoupling of epic proportions threaten huge Tech.

In other words: Washington’s TikTok solution may prove exportable. If it goes global, Silicon Valley’s crown jewels won’t disappear—but they could be domesticated. And domestication, done at scale, is investable.

Source link