TikTok loss to overturn a law that would bar it from the US is unsuccessful.
TikTok’s attempt to overturn a law that might lead to the platform’s suspension in the US has been unsuccessful.
In a decision on Friday, a US appeals court maintained the statute. The judges dismissed TikTok’s claim that the statute was unconstitutional, concluding that it neither “violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws” nor “contravenes the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
TikTok is anticipated to appeal the decision, which puts the site one step closer to a US ban beginning on January 19, 2025, unless it can persuade its Chinese parent firm ByteDance to sell and find a buyer. If TikTok is not sold by the deadline, US app shops and internet providers risk heavy fines for hosting the app. (Biden has the authority to extend the deadline once under the statute.)
A request for comment from TikTok was not immediately answered. As previously stated, ByteDance will not be selling TikTok.
After years of worry on Capitol Hill that ByteDance is a national security threat, President Joe Biden signed a law in April requiring the platform to be sold to a new, non-Chinese owner or prohibited in the United States. Lawmakers are particularly concerned that ByteDance would provide the Chinese government access to user data for surveillance purposes or that the Chinese government might compel the business to utilize TikTok’s algorithm to disseminate propaganda.
In May, TikTok filed a lawsuit to overturn the rule, claiming it unfairly singled out the company and violated the free speech of its more than 170 million American users. A group of individual TikTok creators’ claims were combined with that lawsuit by the court.
US government lawyers contended in a September hearing that TikTok’s algorithm is under the control of its parent business in China and may be used to sway American users.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s three-judge bench recognized in its decision that American users of TikTok “create and view all sorts of free expression and engage with one another and the world.”
Nonetheless, they stated that “divesting the platform from the (People’s Republic of China’s) control is essential to protect our national security, in part because of its expansive reach,” as decided by Congress and several presidents.
On the side of the US government,
The court’s decision on Friday mainly deferred to Congress, concluding that the TikTok law was crafted by lawmakers acting within their constitutional authority and according to the proper process. According to the justices, the law “narrowly” addressed the particular issue of TikTok’s connections with China and “does not suppress content or require a certain mix of content.”
According to the judges, “Americans would continue to have the freedom to read and distribute as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they like on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing.” The Act targets the PRC’s capacity to secretly alter the material. In that sense, the government’s explanation is completely consistent with the First Amendment.
The justices rejected TikTok’s challenges to the US government’s national security concerns, unimpressed by the company’s rebuttals. They claimed that TikTok’s explanation of its data gathering “misses the forest for the trees” and that the company only “quibbles” with the way US regulators have described its data methods.
A proposed agreement with US national security officials that TikTok said would have addressed the possible surveillance issues had been a major topic of contention in the case. By pursuing talks for months, abruptly cutting off communication, and then supporting the legislation that Biden eventually signed, TikTok suggested during the lawsuit that the US government had operated in bad faith. In response, US government attorneys said the draft agreement was not enough to address the security issues.
The judges said they “can neither fault nor second guess” the US officials’ conclusion that the draft contract with TikTok didn’t go far enough, siding with the US government on Friday in the deal negotiations.
Jasmine Enberg, chief analyst at Emarketer, called the decision a “significant setback, but not yet the end of the road for TikTok.”
“The social landscape would undergo significant upheaval if an appeal to the Supreme Court also fails in favor of TikTok and the ban is implemented, harming content creators and small businesses that depend on the app for revenue while benefitting Meta, YouTube, and Snap,” Enberg wrote in an email.
The followers of TikTok,
The deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, Patrick Toomey, said in a statement after the decision that the “ruling sets a flawed and dangerous precedent.”
Millions of Americans use TikTok to express themselves and connect with people worldwide, so banning the app would be a flagrant violation of their First Amendment rights, Toomey said. “Unless there is extremely serious and imminent harm, the government cannot shut down an entire communications platform, and there is no evidence of that here.”
On Friday morning, TikTok users also responded to the decision with speed.
One user commented, “This is nuts,” in a video that was uploaded to the website. “It won’t make me feel better if (Meta CEO) Mark Zuckerberg owns TikTok.” (There is no proof that Zuckerberg, who has his own Instagram Reels feature that is similar to TikTok, would try to purchase the platform from ByteDance or that any attempt to do so would be approved by US antitrust authorities.)
Another user commented, “Although it doesn’t look good right now, I still have my hopes that TikTok won’t be banned in the United States.”
One day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the ban might take effect if TikTok is unable to successfully appeal or spin off from ByteDance.
Trump wrote on Truth Social in March that he was against TikTok being banned because it would only benefit Facebook, the company’s rival in the business, and Zuckerberg, whom Trump has accused of meddling in the 2020 presidential race without proof and threatened with “life in prison.” (Zuckerberg has been attempting to mend fences with Trump; he met with him at Mar-a-Lago and congratulated him on winning the 2024 election.)
In a June video that was uploaded to the app, Trump also stated that he would “never ban TikTok.”
It’s unclear, though, if he will be able to reverse the law or find a means to get around its enforcement.