No. The requirement is that ByteDance must sell it's position of a company. If you bother to learn about the law in question, it quite blatantly targets the ownership of the company, not the company itself.
ByteDance instead opted to shut the company down in retaliation, because it found it was desirable to just crash the whole company than to have anyone else control it, and in the process is fooling useful idiots into believing this has nothing to do with China's interference.
Saying "It is not a ban because if they give it to us then we won't ban it, but if they don't we will ban it but it still won't be a ban because they had a choice in the first place" sounds so ridiculous to me that I don't even know how to argue here.
