Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US elections mean for Washington and the world
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Friday appeared skeptical of TikTok’s efforts to reject a federal “divest or ban” law, as the social media platform warned it could “go dark » in one of its largest markets in nine days.
Friday’s arguments focused on whether to allow a law to take effect that would force TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the platform by Jan. 19 — the day before the inauguration of Donald Trump for president – or face a nationwide ban.
The legislation, passed with strong bipartisan support last year, was driven by concerns that the video platform, which has exploded in popularity among teens and now has 170 million users in the United States, could be used by Beijing for espionage or propaganda purposes.
TikTok denied the accusations and claimed the law violated First Amendment protections for free speech. Meanwhile, Trump promised to “save enforcement” and implored the highest court to delay the legislative deadline to allow “the opportunity to seek a political resolution of the issues at issue in the case” upon his return to the White House later. this month.
Regardless, the court’s decision will have broad implications for free speech in the United States as well as global relations with China.
During oral arguments Friday, justices across the ideological spectrum repeatedly challenged TikTok’s arguments that the law was an attack on free speech, focusing instead on concerns that the platform is being used for of “covert manipulation” and that its data is vulnerable to harvest by Beijing.
A lawyer for TikTok, Noel Francisco of Jones Day, said the law has singled out the company “for particularly harsh treatment, and it is doing so because the government fears that China could, in the future, indirectly, pressure on TikTok.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the Court’s conservative wing, responded: “So are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent company is, in fact, subject to intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
Justice Elena Kagan, who is part of the court’s liberal wing, acknowledged that the company “is going to face some pretty serious consequences.” [but] incidental effects”. If TikTok ultimately loses access to ByteDance’s algorithm following a divestiture, the law still “leaves TikTok the ability to do what every other player in the United States can do, i.e. “meaning finding the best algorithm available,” she said.
Elizabeth Prelogar, the U.S. attorney general, emphasized the government’s national security argument. Beijing’s efforts to weaken the United States by collecting “sensitive data” on Americans and its ability to compel companies to provide such documents “means the Chinese government could use TikTok at any time as a weapon to harm Americans.” United States,” she said.
She said ByteDance had already acquiesced to Beijing’s demands, alleging there was evidence it had “taken steps to misappropriate data.” . . track down dissidents in Hong Kong [and] Uyghurs in China.
ByteDance also “misappropriated US data” by admitting to improperly obtaining the data of two US journalists, including a Financial Times journalist, she added.
TikTok argued that a spinoff would be technically “unfeasible” before the deadline. Beijing, which would have a say under China’s export laws, also said it opposed a sale and called the law a “blatant act of commercial theft.” Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, reiterated that point Friday, saying a divestiture would be “extremely difficult at any time.”
When asked what would happen on January 19 if the company lost this lawsuit, Francisco replied: “From what I understand, we are going dark. »
The court is expected to issue its decision before the January 19 deadline, potentially sealing the fate of a major source of entertainment and information for young people, which has sustained thousands of influencers and attracted the biggest advertising budgets .
Even if the court rules against TikTok, Trump could intervene once in office, although it’s unclear exactly how. The president-elect’s sudden mission to rescue the video app came in part after he used the platform during last year’s election campaign to engage with young voters.
It also comes as Trump said he wanted to preserve “competition” in a market dominated by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, after criticizing the US social network as an “enemy of the people” for alleged censorship of conservative content.
