TikTok has lost its bid to overturn a law that could lead to the platform being banned in the United States. On Friday, a U.S. appeals court upheld the law, rejecting TikTok’s argument that it was unconstitutional. The judges ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment, which protects free speech, nor the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
This ruling brings TikTok one step closer to facing a U.S. ban unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, agrees to sell the platform to a non-Chinese owner by January 19, 2025. If TikTok is not sold by this deadline, U.S. app stores and internet services could face substantial fines for hosting the app. The legislation does allow President Biden to issue a one-time extension of the deadline.
In response to the ruling, TikTok announced its intention to appeal the decision. Company spokesperson Michael Hughes stated:
The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” s “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed, and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people. The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the U.S. and around the world on January 19th, 2025.
ByteDance has previously stated that it will not sell TikTok. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law in April, following years of concerns on Capitol Hill that ByteDance poses a national security risk. Lawmakers have been particularly worried that ByteDance could share user data with the Chinese government for surveillance or that the Chinese government could force the company to manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to spread propaganda.
TikTok sued to block the law in May, arguing that it infringed on the free speech of its more than 170 million American users and unfairly targeted the platform. The court consolidated this lawsuit with claims from a group of individual TikTok creators. During a hearing in September, attorneys for the U.S. government argued that TikTok’s algorithm is controlled by its Chinese parent company and could be used to influence American users.
In their ruling, the three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit acknowledged that TikTok’s American users “create and view all sorts of free expression and engage with one another and the world.” However, they wrote, “in part precisely because of the platform’s expansive reach, Congress and multiple Presidents determined that divesting it from the People’s Republic of China’s control is essential to protect our national security.”
The court’s ruling largely deferred to Congress, finding that lawmakers acted within their constitutional powers and followed appropriate procedures in crafting the TikTok law. The legislation “narrowly” addressed the specific problem of TikTok’s ties to China and “does not suppress content or require a certain mix of content.”
“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,” the judges said. “What the Act targets is the PRC’s ability to manipulate the content covertly. Understood in that way, the Government’s justification is wholly consonant with the First Amendment.”
The judges dismissed TikTok’s objections to the U.S. government’s national security concerns, stating that TikTok only “quibbles” with how U.S. officials have characterized its data practices and that TikTok’s defense of its data collection “misses the forest for the trees.”
A key issue in the case was a proposed deal with U.S. national security officials that TikTok claimed would have resolved the potential spying concerns. During the litigation, TikTok implied that the U.S. government acted in bad faith by pursuing negotiations for months before suddenly cutting off communication and then backing the legislation that Biden ultimately signed. U.S. government lawyers argued that the draft deal was insufficient to resolve the security concerns.
On Friday, the judges sided with the U.S. government on the deal negotiations, stating they “can neither fault nor second guess” the determination by U.S. officials that the draft deal with TikTok didn’t go far enough. TikTok users quickly reacted to the ruling on Friday morning. One user expressed concern about the potential ban, stating, “This is nuts. I don’t want (Meta CEO) Mark Zuckerberg to own TikTok, that won’t make me feel better.” Another user remained hopeful that TikTok would not be banned in the U.S. but acknowledged that the situation looked grim.
If TikTok is unable to successfully appeal or spin off from ByteDance, the ban could go into effect one day before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. Although Trump initially tried to ban TikTok during his previous term, he has recently suggested that he no longer wants to ban the app. In March, Trump posted on Truth Social that he opposed a ban on TikTok because it would only benefit its industry rival, Facebook, and Zuckerberg, whom Trump has accused—without evidence—of interfering in the 2020 presidential election. Trump added in June, in a video posted to TikTok, that he would “never ban TikTok.” However, it remains unclear whether Trump will be able to undo the law or find a way around enforcing it.
