Cuba and Telecommunications: The Door Opens Wider
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.16.09
Since President Obama's April 13th announcement relaxing the U.S. embargo of Cuba to increase contact between family members in the United States and Cuba and the flow of information to the Cuban people, many have awaited the details of the proposed changes. In the September 8, 2009 Federal Register, the details emerge for telecommunications and related travel, as implemented by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Both agencies have jurisdiction over trade and transactions with Cuba. In addition to liberalizing family visits and family remittances, the OFAC rule changes affect certain telecommunications services, contract, related payments, and travel-related to telecommunications projects. The BIS changes relate to the export of certain telecommunications equipment. Most changes are implemented through "general licenses" or "license exceptions" in which no prior authorization is needed. Compliance with the conditions of the general licenses permits transactions and exports to occur freely. As a note of caution - the scope of such authorizations can be narrow; therefore, some interesting transactions may still require prior approval.
OFAC CHANGES |
BIS CHANGES |
Third Party Payments Related to CubaU.S. persons may now contract with non-Cuban telecommunications providers for cell services (phones can be donated under BIS rules, see next column) in Cuba, and U.S. providers may contract individuals in Cuba to provide them with telecommunications services. |
BIS Creates New License ExceptionA new license exception Consumer Communications Devices (CCD) authorizes the export or reexport to Cuba of communications equipment (A list of the eligible items is located in the regulations.) |
Some Payments to Cuban Providers AuthorizedU.S. persons are now authorized to make payments incident to the provision of telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba and the provision of satellite radio or satellite television services to Cuba. They may also enter into and perform services (including making payments) under roaming services agreements with Cuban providers. |
Eligible End-Users and Items under CCD
|
Communications Links Between the U.S. and CubaTransactions incident to establishing facilities to provide telecommunications services linking the United States and Cuba, including, but not limited to fiber-optic cable and satellite facilities, are authorized by general license. |
New Licensing PolicyFor items not donated or outside the scope of CCD, a license is still required from BIS. BIS has changed its policy and will now consider applications to export or reexport items necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications links between the United States and Cuba. |
Certain Telecommunications-Related Travel AuthorizedNew travel authorization is provided for (1) travel-related to export of items authorized by BIS; and (2) travel for participation in telecommunications-related professional meetings. |
The changes announced by OFAC and BIS will make telecommunications transactions with Cuba easier to pursue. Although President Obama's primary objective for the liberalization of the Cuban embargo was not commerce-related, the changes do provide a few commercial opportunities for U.S. companies. For instance, U.S. providers can contract with Cubans to provide telecommunications services and although sales of communications equipment between U.S. persons and Cubans are still prohibited without a license, due to the unlimited frequency and value of equipment that may be donated and exported to Cuba, presumably someone, be it a charity, church, family member, or friend will purchase the devices in the United States and send them to Cuba. Furthermore, the changes facilitate greater contact and increase the flow of information between the United States and Cuba, which can only lead to additional commercial opportunities in the future. Individual transactions require careful compliance measures, however, and those interested must exercise caution. For additional information, please contact the professionals listed to the above.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development

