I've read the complete bill at every stage of it's development.
It places substantial fines on American companies who provide services that distribute, maintain or update any sufficiently popular apps where a company is headquartered in, or has more than a 20% ownership share of the company held, in a country that has been determined to be a foreign adversary.
So sure, it's not "banned', it's just that they're made completely inaccessible to US users because nobody is going to be ok with paying substantial fines in order to allow it on their networks/servers/app stores.
You do realize that, in english, we often use shortcuts to refer to things right? If something is "effectively" a ban, we just call it a ban and move on, because our language provides many, many facilities to improve efficiency. You being pedantic is, remarkably, unpleasant, and speaks poorly of your overall level of social adjustment, specifically because you are using the very language you speak incorrectly as you do so.
You said it required US ownership. It does not, it requires ownership by a non-foreign-adversary, which is every country in the world except 6. I’m being pedantic because the law is pedantic, and I am tired of people catastrophizing over a law they have not understood and that is similar to laws that have been in place for almost a hundred years (radio/tv stations, airlines).
