United States Supreme Court maintain a law on Friday could result in one ban TikTok in the United States this Sunday.
“There is no doubt that for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok provides a distinctive and expansive means of expression, interaction, and community resource,” the court's unanimous opinion said. said. “But Congress has determined that divestment is necessary to address well-supported national security concerns related to TikTok's data collection practices and relationships with foreign adversaries .”
TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the company is said to have plans turn off the application for US users on Sunday, the deadline to renew.
For more than five years, US government officials have tried to ban or force the sale of TikTok, accusing the Chinese-owned company of sharing American user data with the Chinese government and filling up feeds. using propaganda supporting China. Congress and agencies like the FBI have not provided the public with much information confirming these allegations but have pursued various methods to ban TikTok.
In 2020, former president Donald Trump tried for the first time in TikTok passed a failed executive order. Finally, President Joe Biden signed a bill into law on April 24, 2024 requiring TikTok's parent company, Byteance, to sell the app to American owners by January 19 or face removed from US app stores. In an effort to stop the ban, TikTok and a group of creators quickly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, arguing that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversarial Apps Act violates civil rights rights. Their First Amendment.
During oral arguments Friday, TikTok attorney Noel Francisco and Jeffrey Fisher, who represents the creators, tried to drive that argument home. For the government, solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the law did not violate the defendants' free speech rights but instead cut the app off from Bytedance and Chinese influence.
“There is no doubt that the remedy chosen by Congress and the President here is dramatic,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion. “Whether this law will succeed in achieving its purpose, I don't know. A determined foreign adversary could seek to replace one lost surveillance application with another. As time passes and threats evolve, less dramatic and more effective solutions may emerge.”
In its opinion, the court rejected TikTok's central argument that the law violated the company's free speech rights, writing that “the challenged provisions are content neutral on their face.” The justices wrote that the law does not regulate the speech of TikTok or its creators but instead targets the app and Bytedance's corporate structure.
“It is unclear whether the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity or conduct with an expressive component,” the opinion reads. “And it only directly manages Bytedance Ltd. and TikTok through divestment requests.”
The judges noted that their decision should be considered “narrowly focused” and apply strictly to TikTok. “TikTok's scale and vulnerability to control by foreign adversaries, coupled with the vast amount of sensitive data the platform collects, demonstrates how to treat security concerns differently. Government,” the opinion read.