As the well-known social media platform battles for its existence in the United States, a federal appeals court panel unanimously upheld a rule on Friday that could result in a ban on TikTok as early as next month.
TikTok challenged the law, claiming it violated the First Amendment, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the company’s petition to overturn the law, which requires the app 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 US.
“In this case, the government took action only to defend that freedom against a foreign adversary country and to restrict that adversary’s capacity to collect information on Americans.”
Although it’s uncertain if the Supreme Court will hear the case, TikTok and ByteDance, another plaintiff, are anticipated to file an appeal.
“On this significant constitutional issue, we expect the Supreme Court to uphold Americans’ right to free speech, as they have done in the past,” said Michael Hughes, a spokesman for TikTok.
Although the case is firmly in the legal system, it’s also possible that President-elect Donald Trump, who attempted to ban TikTok during his first term but stated during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action, will give the two companies some sort of lifeline. Hughes stated,
“Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people.”
Unless stopped, Hughes claimed, the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”
In an interview on Fox Business on Friday, Rep. Michael Waltz, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, stated, “He wants to save TikTok.”
A years-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 European Union on Friday expressed similar concerns as it looks into intelligence that suggests Russia may have abused the platform to influence the Romanian elections.
The United States has expressed concern about TikTok collecting large amounts of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits that could be coerced into the hands of the Chinese government.
Laptops 1000Officials have also warned that the proprietary algorithm that powers what users see on the app is susceptible to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that is difficult to detect.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement on Friday that the ruling today is a significant step in preventing the Chinese government from using TikTok as a weapon.
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 company 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.
Following oral arguments in September, the appeals court panel—which consists of two Republicans and one Democrat-appointed judge—issued its decision on Friday.
The panel seemed to debate how TikTok’s foreign ownership impacts its constitutional rights throughout the more than two-hour discussion, as well as the extent to which the government may limit foreign influence on a foreign-owned platform. All three rejected TikTok’s plea on Friday.
Republican appointee Ginsburg dismissed TikTok’s primary legal defenses of the law in the court’s decision, arguing that it constituted an illegal bill of attainder or a Fifth Amendment seizing of property.
Additionally, he stated that since the government is not attempting to “suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok, the rule does not violate the First Amendment.
Ginsburg used the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China to write,
“In theory, content on the platform could remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing.”
A concurring opinion was issued by the court’s chief judge, Judge Sri Srinivasan.
TikTok’s case was combined with a second lawsuit filed by several video creators, for which the business is paying legal fees, and a third action filed on behalf of conservative creators who collaborate with BASED Politics Inc., a nonprofit.
The Knight First Amendment Institute and other groups had also submitted amicus papers in favor of TikTok.
The organization’s executive director, Jameel Jaffer, stated,
“This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad.”
“We hope the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.”
Legislators who had supported the legislation, meanwhile, rejoiced over the court’s decision on Capitol Hill.
Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, who chairs the House Select Committee on China, stated,
“I am hopeful that President Trump will enable an American takeover of TikTok to permit its continuous use in the United States. I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership.”
The law’s co-author, Democratic Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, stated that “it’s time for ByteDance to accept” the legislation.
TikTok claims to have spent over $2 billion to strengthen security measures for U.S. user data to allay worries about the company’s owners.
The business has also said that a draft deal it gave to 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 has criticized the administration for abandoning further negotiations on it.
The platform cannot be sold commercially or technologically, according to the lawyers for the two businesses.
Additionally, they claim that if TikTok were sold without its coveted algorithm, which is the platform’s secret sauce and would probably be blocked by Chinese regulators under any divestment plan, the U.S. version of TikTok would become isolated from other worldwide material.
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 project, which attempts to safeguard online privacy, said this week that anonymous bidders have made unofficial financial promises totaling more than $20 billion.
