TikTok has initiated legal action to challenge a new US law that mandates its sale by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to avoid a ban in the United States. The social media platform described this legislation as an “extraordinary intrusion on free speech rights” affecting both the company and its 170 million American users. The company argues that the US government’s justifications are based on “speculative concerns” and has requested that the court intervene to prevent the law’s implementation.
Last month, President Joe Biden signed this controversial bill, citing national security reasons for the legislative move. This follows prolonged discussions in Washington concerning the risks posed by TikTok’s Chinese ownership, specifically the potential for American user data to be accessed by the Chinese government or used for propagandistic purposes. Despite assurances from TikTok and ByteDance of their independence from the Chinese government, which also opposes the law, labelling it as an instance of US “bullying,” no sale is currently planned.
Addressing the media, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre clarified that the law “is not a ban. It is a divestment,” and deferred further inquiries to the Department of Justice, which has not commented on the matter. According to the law, TikTok will be removed from US app stores by January 2025 unless ByteDance secures a buyer, a deadline President Biden may extend by 90 days if negotiations are progressing.
In its appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, TikTok criticized the feasibility of such a sale, stating it was “simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act.” The company also pointed out the unfair targeting of TikTok alone, suggesting a “two-tiered speech regime” that discriminates against it while previous administrations have struggled to enforce similar bans.
The stance by many politicians, including President Biden, who continue to use TikTok, was noted by the company as contradictory to the perceived security threats. TikTok contrasted its situation with historical US restrictions on foreign ownership in sectors like broadcast television and radio, arguing that its platform as a “privately created speech forum” should not be subject to government-mandated ownership changes.
Despite TikTok investing over $2 billion to mitigate US security concerns, Jacob Helberg of a Congress-appointed committee overseeing US-China national security implications dismissed these efforts as merely a “deceptive marketing effort,” calling the lawsuit “unserious.”
However, Ashley Gorski of the American Civil Liberties Union supported TikTok’s stance, asserting the lawsuit convincingly argues that the law essentially acts as a ban, thereby raising significant free speech issues. She highlighted the stringent conditions required for such a government-imposed ban, which she believes are not met in this case.
Amid these debates, US Senator Mitt Romney‘s comments linking congressional support for the measure to influencing US perceptions of international conflicts could complicate the government’s defence of the law, according to Gorski.
In contrast, Congressman John Moolenaar expressed confidence in the legality of the law, criticizing TikTok’s preference for litigation over distancing itself from the Chinese Communist Party. He emphasized the combined legislative and executive belief in the security threat posed by TikTok to the American public.
This lawsuit comes as part of broader US actions against Chinese tech firms amid escalating tensions between the two leading global economies. In related news, the Department of Commerce has recently revoked permissions for US exports to Huawei, further tightening the noose on Chinese technology entities.
