US Supreme court debates TikTok's future
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: The US Supreme Court heard arguments over the law requiring TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a ban by 19 January.
Lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance warned that enforcing the law would violate the First Amendment and render the platform unusable for its 170 million US users.
The Biden administration’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argued the law was necessary to mitigate national security risks, including the potential misuse of user data and covert influence by the Chinese government.
Justices questioned both sides, debating whether the law overreaches by targeting free speech or whether TikTok’s Chinese ownership presents an unavoidable threat.
Meanwhile, billionaire Frank McCourt, founder of Project Liberty, made a formal offer to ByteDance to purchase TikTok’s US operations – estimated to be worth USD20 billion, excluding its algorithm – aiming to keep the platform functional while addressing national security concerns.
ByteDance has said a sale is unfeasible.
The context: The US Supreme Court is reviewing the bipartisan law, passed by Congress last year, after President-elect Donald Trump requested a delay to the 19 January deadline, given his term begins on 20 January, a day after the law is set to take effect.
Trump, a previous critic who now describes himself as a “big star” on TikTok and campaigned on the promise of saving the popular app, asked the court to extend the deadline to allow his administration to pursue a political solution.
What they said: Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly focused on the ties between ByteDance and the Chinese government, asking whether it should be ignored that TikTok’s ultimate parent is subject to intelligence work for China.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns that TikTok’s data on millions of young Americans could one day expose future members of the CIA or FBI to espionage or blackmail. Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch expressed some scepticism about the need for a complete ban, suggesting that public knowledge of TikTok’s Chinese ties or a warning label might address risks of covert manipulation.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likened the law to restrictions on associating with foreign terrorist groups and noted its focus on ownership rather than speech.
Justice Kavanaugh remarked that the law’s data protection elements seemed “very strong” but questioned whether concerns about covert content operations alone would justify the ban.
Justice Gorsuch asked why Congress didn’t find a less severe solution, like restricting data sharing, instead of outright banning the app.
Prelogar responded that after four years of discussions with ByteDance, it was clear that creating a "true firewall" was not possible. She said that once user data is in China, the Chinese government can demand access to it, rendering less severe solutions like restricting data sharing ineffective.
