TikTok faces US ban as federal court hears pivotal case on app's future
Posted on 09/16/2024
TikTok will have 15 minutes to fight for its ability to operate in the U.S. as oral arguments begin Monday against the federal government's ban of the popular social media app whose connections to China have persuaded Congress and President Joe Biden to pass a law removing it from the U.S. if its parent company does not divest.
Attorneys for the federal government and TikTok will appear before a federal appeals court to deliver brief arguments over the constitutionality of the ban in a case that is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.
The law being challenged was signed by President Joe Biden in April, forcing ByteDance to divest its holdings in TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. Lawmakers and national security officials are concerned China could spy on Americans through the app through a national security law that would require ByteDance to or to use its powerful and effective algorithm to sway public discourse.
TikTok has repeatedly argued that it does not share U.S. user data with China and would refuse any requests to do so but those assurances have done little to persuade lawmakers and the federal government.
, the Justice Department has argued that TikTok collects wide swaths of sensitive data about its American users that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government. Government attorneys have also argued that the app's algorithm is vulnerable to manipulation that could shape the views of its users.
In its , TikTok and ByteDance have said Congress is trying to punish it based on unsubstantiated allegations. The company and its attorneys have also argued that it is not possible to divest and would force it to shut down by Jan. 19 if courts don't intervene.
Even if divestiture were feasible, TikTok in the United States would still be reduced to a shell of its former self, stripped of the innovative and expressive technology that tailors content to each user," the companies said in a legal brief filed in June. "It would also become an island, preventing Americans from exchanging views with the global TikTok community.
TikTok has also argued the ban is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, arguing that forcing it to shut down in the U.S. would violate the free speech rights of creators and users who get information on the app. Content creators have also sued the federal government over the ban, and a group of them will be speaking at Monday's hearing.
?If Congress can do this,? the company wrote in filings, ?it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down.?
The company has also argued that the divestiture-or-ban approach is constitutionally extreme and the government could have taken other steps to address the national security concerns. According to court filings, the company had worked out a draft proposal with national security officials to deal with the national security concerns that included the ability for the government to shut down the app if the terms were violated.
According to TikTok, the government abruptly pulled out of those negotiations without an explanation. The company has already implemented some of the policies laid out in the deal like moving U.S. user data into servers controlled by American-owned Oracle and creating barriers between TikTok and ByteDance as part of $2 billion in voluntary investments.
Justice Department attorneys have said in court filings that finalizing an agreement would be impossible or require extensive resources because of TikTok's size and technical complexity. It has also said that the only thing that could resolve government concerns would be to cut the ties between TikTok and ByteDance, an untenable position for the company.
ByteDance has publicly said TikTok is not for sale and China's government has been "firmly" opposed to a deal. A couple of U.S. investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, have expressed interest in buying the popular social media platform even though a deal is highly unlikely and would likely be without the powerful algorithm that drives its popularity.
It is unclear when the court might issue a ruling on the case, though one is expected before the Jan. 19 deadline.
Attorneys for the federal government and TikTok will appear before a federal appeals court to deliver brief arguments over the constitutionality of the ban in a case that is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.
The law being challenged was signed by President Joe Biden in April, forcing ByteDance to divest its holdings in TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. Lawmakers and national security officials are concerned China could spy on Americans through the app through a national security law that would require ByteDance to or to use its powerful and effective algorithm to sway public discourse.
TikTok has repeatedly argued that it does not share U.S. user data with China and would refuse any requests to do so but those assurances have done little to persuade lawmakers and the federal government.
, the Justice Department has argued that TikTok collects wide swaths of sensitive data about its American users that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government. Government attorneys have also argued that the app's algorithm is vulnerable to manipulation that could shape the views of its users.
In its , TikTok and ByteDance have said Congress is trying to punish it based on unsubstantiated allegations. The company and its attorneys have also argued that it is not possible to divest and would force it to shut down by Jan. 19 if courts don't intervene.
Even if divestiture were feasible, TikTok in the United States would still be reduced to a shell of its former self, stripped of the innovative and expressive technology that tailors content to each user," the companies said in a legal brief filed in June. "It would also become an island, preventing Americans from exchanging views with the global TikTok community.
TikTok has also argued the ban is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, arguing that forcing it to shut down in the U.S. would violate the free speech rights of creators and users who get information on the app. Content creators have also sued the federal government over the ban, and a group of them will be speaking at Monday's hearing.
?If Congress can do this,? the company wrote in filings, ?it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down.?
The company has also argued that the divestiture-or-ban approach is constitutionally extreme and the government could have taken other steps to address the national security concerns. According to court filings, the company had worked out a draft proposal with national security officials to deal with the national security concerns that included the ability for the government to shut down the app if the terms were violated.
According to TikTok, the government abruptly pulled out of those negotiations without an explanation. The company has already implemented some of the policies laid out in the deal like moving U.S. user data into servers controlled by American-owned Oracle and creating barriers between TikTok and ByteDance as part of $2 billion in voluntary investments.
Justice Department attorneys have said in court filings that finalizing an agreement would be impossible or require extensive resources because of TikTok's size and technical complexity. It has also said that the only thing that could resolve government concerns would be to cut the ties between TikTok and ByteDance, an untenable position for the company.
ByteDance has publicly said TikTok is not for sale and China's government has been "firmly" opposed to a deal. A couple of U.S. investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, have expressed interest in buying the popular social media platform even though a deal is highly unlikely and would likely be without the powerful algorithm that drives its popularity.
It is unclear when the court might issue a ruling on the case, though one is expected before the Jan. 19 deadline.
Comments( 0 )
0 0 2
0 0 2
0 0 2
0 0 3