TikTok, ByteDance Rep Says Endorsement of Law May Enable Statutes Targeting Other Companies
The lawyer for TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance issued a warning during Supreme Court arguments over a law that could compel the sale of the short-video app or ban it in the United States: If Congress can do this to TikTok, it could target other companies as well.
The law, which was the subject of arguments before the nine justices on Friday, sets a Jan 19 deadline for ByteDance to sell the popular social media platform or face a ban on national security grounds. The companies have sought at least a delay in the implementation of the law, arguing that it violates the First Amendment protection against government abridgment of free speech.
Noel Francisco, representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued that Supreme Court endorsement of the law could pave the way for statutes targeting other companies on similar grounds.
“AMC movie theaters used to be owned by a Chinese company. Under this theory, Congress could order AMC theaters to censor any movies they dislike or promote any films Congress wants,” Francisco told the justices.
The justices indicated through their questions that they were inclined to uphold the law, though some expressed serious concerns about its First Amendment implications.
TikTok is a platform used by about 170 million people in the United States, nearly half of the country’s population. Congress passed the measure last year with overwhelming bipartisan support, citing concerns over the potential for the Chinese government to use TikTok to spy on Americans and carry out covert influence operations.
Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok content creators who also challenged the law, questioned why Congress focused solely on TikTok and not major Chinese online retailers like Temu, which has 70 million U.S. users.
President Joe Biden signed the measure into law, and his administration is defending it in court. The deadline for divestiture falls just one day before Republican Donald Trump, who opposes the ban, takes office as Biden’s successor.
‘Foreign Adversaries’
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the law for the Biden administration, argued that it was crucial for the law to take effect on Jan. 19 in order to push ByteDance to proceed with divestiture.
“Foreign adversaries do not willingly give up control over this mass communications channel in the United States,” Prelogar said.
“When push comes to shove, and these restrictions take effect, it could fundamentally change the landscape for ByteDance to move forward with the divestiture process,” Prelogar added.
If the ban takes effect on Jan. 19, Apple and Alphabet’s Google would no longer be able to offer TikTok for new users to download, but existing users could still access the app.
The Supreme Court also debated whether the possibility of TikTok being used for covert influence campaigns or propaganda purposes by China justified banning it.
“Look, everybody manipulates content,” Francisco told the court. “Many people think CNN, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times manipulate their content. That is core protected speech.”
Trump urged the court on Dec. 27 to place a hold on the Jan. 19 deadline to give his incoming administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution” of the case.
Under the law, the U.S. president has the power to extend the Jan. 19 deadline for 90 days, but only under circumstances that do not appear to apply here, as ByteDance has made no apparent effort to sell TikTok’s U.S. assets.
