Polestar Says Volvo’s U.S. Approval Led It to Expect the Same. BIS Reviews Each Authorization Case by Case.

Polestar says Volvo Cars’ U.S. approval led it to expect a similar outcome from the Commerce Department before its own request was denied.¹ But the federal rule governing those decisions says each specific authorization is reviewed case by case, applies to the parties and transaction actually presented to regulators, and can carry tailored technical or operational conditions.²

That tension is the most important part of an Aug. 18 letter Polestar sent to U.S. dealers. The Wall Street Journal first reported the non-public letter on Aug. 25, and The Verge says it independently obtained the same document.³¹

According to Polestar’s account in the letter, the company applied for a Connected Vehicles Rule specific authorization on May 29, 2025. Polestar says an April 2026 meeting with Commerce Under Secretary Jeffrey Kessler left it believing that, if Volvo received approval under what Polestar viewed as effectively similar ownership and vehicle-technology circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect Polestar to receive approval as well.¹

That is Polestar’s description of the meeting, not an independently verified government promise. Commerce and BIS have not publicly confirmed Polestar’s account of that April meeting in the public materials reviewed for this article. The letter also says Polestar proposed possible mitigation measures — including audits and restrictions involving data storage, digital keys and remote access — but that BIS did not enter mitigation discussions before deciding.¹

Volvo really did get an authorization

Volvo Cars announced on May 26 that Volvo Car USA had received a specific authorization under the Connected Vehicles Rule. Volvo itself described the process as case by case and said its discussions with U.S. officials addressed governance, technology and data security.⁴

Polestar’s comparison is not superficial. The Polestar 3 and Volvo EX90 share Volvo’s SPA2 architecture and are tied to the same South Carolina manufacturing operation. Polestar’s SEC filings also say the Polestar 3 runs software from Volvo Cars, while Volvo has said the EX90 and Polestar 3 share the SPA2 platform and are produced at its Ridgeville plant near Charleston.⁵⁶

Those overlaps help explain why Polestar expected Volvo’s result to matter. They do not establish that the two companies submitted equivalent regulatory applications.²⁵⁶

Under the final Connected Vehicles Rule, a specific-authorization application is tied to a proposed transaction and must provide detailed information about the parties, covered software or vehicle-connectivity hardware, the vehicles involved and the intended use. BIS says its decision applies only to the actual parties and transaction described in the application. The agency can also impose different technical or operational controls depending on the risks it identifies.²

That means two automakers can share ownership ties, a vehicle platform, software relationships and a factory without the public record proving that BIS was evaluating the same transaction, the same covered components, the same data paths or the same mitigation package in both cases.²⁵⁶

There is another limit on outside comparisons: BIS said in the final rule that it will not publicly disclose approved specific authorizations. Volvo voluntarily announced that it had received one, but its public release does not disclose the detailed authorization terms or conditions.²⁴

The reason for the split is still unresolved publicly

The public materials reviewed for this story do not reveal the specific reason BIS approved Volvo and denied Polestar. Polestar’s dealer letter says the company is still seeking an explanation, while the available federal rule explains the authorization process rather than the confidential facts of either company’s case.²⁴⁷³¹

What is established is the outcome. Polestar announced June 25 that BIS had not granted it authorization to sell new model-year 2027-and-later vehicles in the United States. The company said it would continue selling its remaining U.S. inventory of Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 vehicles and would continue supporting existing customers through its service network.⁷

The rule also gave Polestar a formal way to challenge the denial. A denied applicant may appeal to the Commerce under secretary within 45 days of the adverse notice. Separately, the rule allows a denied applicant to seek reconsideration later based on new material facts or changed circumstances.²

Reuters reported when the denial was announced that Polestar said it would not appeal. The company’s motive for declining that route is not established by the public record reviewed here.⁸

For now, the Volvo comparison shows why Polestar is asking questions, but not why the two companies got different answers. Resolving that would require new information from BIS or Commerce, a Polestar reconsideration or other filing, or additional disclosure about the conditions attached to Volvo’s authorization.

Sources

Footnotes

1. Polestar claims it was blindsided by sales ban — The Verge / Andrew J. Hawkins, Aug. 25, 2026. https://www.theverge.com/transportation/984390/polestar-blindsided-sales-ban-letter-dealer-trump The Verge says it independently obtained the Aug. 18 dealer letter and provides details of Polestar’s application timeline, meeting account and proposed mitigations. Those details remain attributed to Polestar. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Connected Vehicles — Final Rule — U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security / Federal Register, published Jan. 16, 2025; effective Mar. 17, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00592/securing-the-information-and-communications-technology-and-services-supply-chain-connected-vehicles Establishes the case-by-case, transaction-specific authorization process, possible conditions, non-disclosure of approved authorizations, appeal procedure and reconsideration mechanism. It does not reveal the confidential reasoning in Polestar’s or Volvo’s individual cases. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

3. EV-Maker Polestar Says Trump Administration Strung It Along Before U.S. Ban — The Wall Street Journal / Christopher Otts, Aug. 25, 2026. https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/ev-maker-polestar-says-trump-administration-strung-it-along-before-u-s-ban-d172b3b9 Originated reporting on the non-public Aug. 18 Polestar dealer letter. The letter reflects Polestar’s account of the process, not independent government confirmation. ↩ ↩²

4. Volvo Cars receives a specific authorization in the United States under the ICTS Connected Vehicles Rule — Volvo Cars, May 26, 2026. https://www.volvocars.com/intl/media/press-releases/529D5DA7B9332A2C/ Establishes that Volvo Car USA received a specific authorization and records Volvo’s characterization of the process as case by case. It does not disclose the authorization letter or detailed conditions. ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. Polestar 2025 Form 20-F — Polestar / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Apr. 17, 2026. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1884082/000188408226000006/psny-20251231.htm Establishes Polestar 3 production at Volvo’s Charleston plant, its SPA2 relationship with the Volvo EX90 and Polestar’s use of software from Volvo Cars. These technical relationships do not establish identical regulatory applications. ↩ ↩² ↩³

6. Volvo Cars plans to consolidate Polestar 3 production at its US plant — Volvo Cars, Mar. 31, 2026. https://www.volvocars.com/intl/media/press-releases/14D56D0E2FDC937B/ Establishes the shared SPA2 architecture and South Carolina production relationship between the Polestar 3 and Volvo EX90. It does not establish regulatory equivalence. ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. Polestar strengthens its focus on Europe following decision under the U.S. Connected Vehicle Rule — Polestar, June 25, 2026. https://investors.polestar.com/news-releases/news-release-details/polestar-strengthens-its-focus-europe-following-decision-under Establishes the denial for MY2027-and-later U.S. sales, continued sale of existing Polestar 3/4 inventory and Polestar’s stated customer-support plan. The support statement is a company commitment. ↩ ↩²

8. US cranks up pressure on China EVs with Polestar ban — Reuters, June 25, 2026; updated June 26, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-denies-polestar-authorization-sell-vehicles-latest-strike-against-china-made-2026-06-25/ Provides independent confirmation of the denial and reports Polestar’s statement that it would not appeal. It does not establish the confidential reasoning behind the authorization decisions. ↩