I can’t rewrite that specific article, but here’s an original analysis you can post that covers the same core issue—why the reported Nvidia/AMD revenue-sharing pact with the U.S. government could face legal challenges, and what investors should watch.

Title: Nvidia/AMD’s China License “Revenue Share” With Washington: Legal Risks, Market Impacts, and What’s Next

The reported arrangement for Nvidia and AMD to remit a percentage of China-related AI chip revenue to the U.S. government as a condition for export licenses is unprecedented—and likely to face legal and political scrutiny. Whether it survives challenge will hinge on how the pact is structured, the statutory authorities invoked, and the courts’ willingness to defer to national security rationales.

What’s reportedly happening
– The U.S. is tightening export controls on advanced AI chips to China while granting limited licenses.
– As part of licensing, the government would receive a cut of revenue from those China sales.
– The structure resembles a quasi-tax or a user-fee surcharge tied to export permission, rather than a traditional civil penalty or license fee schedule.

Why it’s ripe for legal challenge
– Nondelegation and statutory authority: Agencies need clear congressional authorization to impose monetary exactions. If the “revenue share” functions like a tax without explicit statutory basis, challengers could argue it exceeds executive authority. The government might instead claim fee-like authority under export control laws or national emergency powers, but courts scrutinize whether fees reflect administrative costs versus raising general revenue.
– Major Questions Doctrine: A policy of extracting ongoing revenue shares from private firms to condition exports to the world’s second-largest economy is economically and politically significant. Courts could demand clear congressional authorization for such a novel scheme.
– Takings and coercion claims: Companies might argue the condition is coercive—pay or lose access to a large market—constituting an unconstitutional condition. The government would counter that export licenses are privileges, not rights, and conditions tied to national security are long-established.
– Administrative Procedure Act (APA): If implemented via guidance or license terms without notice-and-comment rulemaking, challengers may argue it’s an unlawful legislative rule. Even with rulemaking, they could attack arbitrariness, especially if the percentage appears untethered to costs or policy analysis.
– Equal protection and due process: If limited to specific firms or applied inconsistently across industries, companies may allege arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. The government’s defense would lean heavily on national security rational basis, which typically prevails.

Possible government defenses
– National security deference: Courts traditionally grant wide latitude under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA). If the revenue share is framed as a security control or mitigation measure, deference increases.
– Fee vs. tax distinction: If positioned as a license-related fee funding compliance, enforcement, and monitoring of sensitive tech exports, it might pass muster—especially if the percentage is justified by administrable criteria and applied uniformly.
– Voluntary contract theory: If the arrangement is embedded in negotiated license terms that firms could reject (by forgoing licenses), the government could characterize it as a voluntary bargain. Courts may still ask whether “voluntary” holds when the alternative is losing a critical market.

Investor implications
– Earnings sensitivity: A mid-teens revenue skim on China AI chip sales would directly impact gross margins and free cash flow on those units. Depending on product mix and any pricing offsets, near-term EPS headwinds are likely if the pact sticks.
– Pricing power vs. elasticity: Nvidia and AMD may try to pass some cost through to Chinese buyers. Success depends on substitution options, local competition, and China’s willingness to tolerate higher AI build costs.
– License stability risk: If courts enjoin the revenue condition, license timelines could be disrupted, creating shipment uncertainty and inventory risk. Conversely, a clean legal win could reduce the policy overhang.
– Competitive dynamics: Firms without similar exposure or those with more diversified geographies might benefit at the margin. Domestic accelerator alternatives in China could accelerate if costs rise further for U.S. chips.
– Policy path dependency: Even if this arrangement survives, it sets a precedent for revenue-linked conditions in other sensitive sectors (lithography, EDA tools, or advanced packaging). That adds a new policy risk premium to cash flow forecasts.

What to watch next
– Formal rulemaking vs. case-by-case licenses: A published rule with detailed justification signals staying power; ad hoc license terms are easier to challenge.
– Congressional reaction: Supportive legislation could cure authority gaps; bipartisan pushback would raise legal risk.
– Litigation posture: A preliminary injunction request by affected firms or industry groups would be a key test. Watch for arguments centered on the Major Questions Doctrine and statutory basis.
– Company guidance: Listen for updated China exposure, assumed effective “take rate,” and any pricing actions on upcoming earnings calls.
– International response: China’s potential retaliatory measures, procurement shifts, or support for local AI chip ecosystems will shape the medium-term demand curve.

Bottom line
This is a legally novel mechanism with meaningful earnings and multiple-expansion implications for leading AI chipmakers. Near-term, it may unlock export licenses and stabilize some China revenue. Medium-term, the arrangement invites legal challenges that could either invalidate the revenue share, complicate licensing, or entrench a new cost of doing business tied to national security policy. For investors, position sizing should reflect litigation uncertainty, potential pass-through pricing, and accelerating localization trends in China’s AI supply chain.