As the well-known social media platform battles for its existence in the United States, a federal appeals court panel on Friday upheld a legislation that might result in a ban on TikTok in a matter of months.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law, claiming it violated the First Amendment, and rejected the company’s petition to overturn the law that requires TikTok to sever its ties with its parent company, ByteDance, based in China, or face banishment by mid-January.
Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion, which said that the First Amendment exists to safeguard free speech in the United States. In this case, the government took action only to defend that freedom from an enemy country abroad and to restrict that adversary’s capacity to collect information about Americans.
It is anticipated that TikTok and ByteDance, two more plaintiffs in the case, will file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Donald Trump, the president-elect, stated during the presidential campaign that he is now opposed to a TikTok ban and would seek to save the social media platform. Trump attempted to ban TikTok during his first term and his Justice Department would have to implement the law.
The appeals court panel, which is made up of two Republican and one Democrat-appointed judge, heard oral arguments in September before rendering its decision on Friday. TikTok’s petition was rejected by all three judges. A concurring opinion was written by the court’s chief judge, Judge Sri Srinivasan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.
A year-long drama in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government views as a national security danger because of its ties to China, culminated in the law, which President Joe Biden signed in April.
The United States has expressed concern over TikTok’s collection of extensive user data, including private viewing habits, which may be coerced into the hands of the Chinese authorities. As it examines the video-sharing app’s involvement in the Romanian elections, the European Union expressed similar concerns on Friday. Officials have also warned that the proprietary algorithm that powers what users see on the app is susceptible to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who could use it to shape content on the platform in a way that is difficult to detect.
Nonetheless, a sizable amount of the government’s data in the case has been withheld and concealed from both the two businesses and the general public.
TikTok, which filed a lawsuit against the government in May over the regulation, has long disputed that Beijing could use it to spy on or influence Americans. As its lawyers have correctly noted, the United States has not produced any proof that the business gave user data to the Chinese government or altered content in the United States to Beijing’s advantage. Additionally, the Department of Justice has highlighted that the regulation is based on future dangers, citing, among other things, unnamed actions the two businesses have allegedly taken in the past in response to demands from the Chinese government.
It was difficult to predict the three judges’ decisions after the September hearing, according to several legal experts.
The panel seemed to debate how TikTok’s foreign ownership impacts its constitutional rights and the extent to which the government may limit foreign influence on a foreign-owned platform during a more than two-hour court hearing.
Attorney Daniel Tenny of the Department of Justice was questioned by the judges about the case’s potential First Amendment ramifications. However, they also voiced some doubt about TikTok’s claims, questioning Andrew Pincus, the company’s lawyer, about whether any First Amendment rights prohibit the government from limiting a significant business that is exposed to foreign adversary laws and influence.
The judges’ inquiries on TikTok’s ownership included references to wartime precedence that permits the United States to limit foreign ownership of broadcast licenses. They also inquired as to whether the arguments put up by TikTok would hold water in the event that the United States was at war.
TikTok claims to have committed over $2 billion to strengthen safeguards for U.S. user data in an effort to allay worries about the company’s owners.
The business also contends that a draft deal it gave the Biden administration during negotiations more than two years ago may have addressed the government’s more general concerns. The Justice Department claims the accord is insufficient, and it has criticized the administration for abandoning further negotiations on it.
Lawyers for the two businesses have asserted that a technological and commercial divestment of the platform is not feasible. Additionally, they claim that if TikTok were to be sold without the platform’s coveted algorithm—which Chinese officials would probably reject under any divestment plan—the U.S. version of the app would become isolated from other worldwide content.
However, a few investors have shown interest in buying the platform, including billionaire Frank McCourt and Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Earlier this year, both men announced that they were forming a consortium to buy TikTok’s U.S. division.
A representative for McCourt’s Project Liberty program, which aims to safeguard online privacy, said this week that anonymous bidders have offered unofficial capital commitments totaling more than $20 billion.
The case against TikTok was combined with a second action filed by a number of video creators, for whom the corporation is paying legal fees, and a third lawsuit filed on behalf of conservative creators who collaborate with BASED Politics Inc., a nonprofit.
Trump’s Justice Department would be responsible for enforcing the rule and fining any possible infractions if TikTok files an appeal and the courts uphold it. The penalties would apply to internet hosting companies that are not allowed to serve TikTok and app stores that are not allowed to offer it.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
