On May 7 local time, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit with the United States Federal Court, requesting the court to rule that the “Harming Americans from Their Own Enemy’s Mastery and Application of French Law”, which was intended to ban TikTok, was unconstitutional, and blocked the implementation of the law enforcement. In the relevant items, ByteDance was limited to its US business for about 9 months, otherwise it would face the US World ban.
“This is the first time in the history of the US Congress that a permanent and nationwide ban has been announced on a specific speech platform.” In a 70 page lawsuit, the two companies believe that the bill clearly infringes on the First Amendment power of their US users because it suppresses their speech and prevents users from obtaining legal information.
It was also mentioned in the literature that although the sponsors claimed that the bill was not a ban, it was only a standard for the ownership of TikTok, because it provided a choice for ByteDance: to spin off TikTok’s American business or to be opened. But in reality, TikTok has no room for choice. The ban is not based on any convincing evidence, but rather on speculation and concerns about data security and substantive manipulation. These concerns, even if they survive, can be addressed through ongoing actions such as the Texas Plan.
TikTok’s jump with ByteDance is exaggerated. The bill requires “qualified divestiture” to permit TikTok to continue its operations in the United States. It is impossible to honor whether in terms of trade, skills, or law enforcement, let alone the 270 day time limit. Ultimately, the bill will force TikTok to open before January 19, 2025, silencing 170 million Americans.
The two companies have not yet raised the ban, which not only deprives them of the right to equal harm, but also leads to illegal occupation of their public property.
According to CNN, the White House has forwarded the enforcement results related to TikTok to the US Department of Justice, but the department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This bill was signed by US leader Biden on April 24th, but the US authorities have imposed multiple bans on TikTok. This is not TikTok’s first time suing the US authorities. In 2020, then US leader Trump announced a ban on TikTok. TikTok, employees, and creators successfully sued the US authorities, and the court overturned the ban.
After the wave of bans and bribery in 2020, TikTok spent a huge amount of capital on regulations, including relocating Chinese employees to other countries and regions, and spending heavily to stop traveling in the United States.
Although TikTok has made various efforts to break the rules, this does not make the US authorities take their guard off it. Many pro lawmakers still believe that TikTok’s Chinese ancestry poses a national security risk to the United States.
Lawyer Wei Dongdong, who is familiar with the relevant law enforcement in the United States and is a partner of Huiye Law Firm in the field of data exchange standards, has previously stated to Interface News that this bill is more rigorous and comprehensive than before, “and is the highest level.”
It is different from the bans experienced by TikTok in 2020 and 2023, and is not a separate TikTok ban bill, but is packaged in a “HR815” with nearly 20 bills. The HR815 goal is to provide emergency supplementary funding for the financial year ending September 30, 2024, and use it for other purposes, with a funding amount of up to $95 billion.
After the bill was passed, TikTok and its CEO Zhou Shouzi did not respond strongly and vowed to use law enforcement methods to attack. In addition, the ByteDance aspect made a clear debut on April 25, and the foreign media had nothing to do with the fact that it was not true that it was trying to find out how to sell TikTok, and the company did not have any plans to sell TikTok.
Wei Dongdong analyzed the interface message at that time. As it was expected that the preparation time would be relatively long, ByteDance could file a complaint in the second half of this year or at the end of this year. When filing a complaint, the court can also request preliminary permission for the enforcement of the law during the trial of the case, that is, a temporary injunction, which can ultimately be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court. Temporary injunctions can compete for time for TikTok, and even if they lose in the first trial, they can still file an appeal. This way, even if the maximum time limit of one year is exceeded, as long as the case is still in the trial process, TikTok has the opportunity to inherit and operate.
Surprisingly, TikTok quickly filed a lawsuit in a short period of time.
“The earlier you file a lawsuit, the more buffer time TikTok has.” Wei Dongdong analyzed to Interface News that submitting a lawsuit as soon as possible can give you the opportunity to obtain a temporary injunction from the court as soon as possible, thus gaining more initiative.
The lawsuit submitted by TikTok this time mainly focuses on freedom of speech, and also mentions the encroachment on public property. She believes that by overturning bans or laws on freedom of speech, TikTok has a history and preparation. Previously, in the 2023 ban case in Canada, TikTok won the case on the grounds of freedom of speech.
In 1791, the United States Congress passed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibited the enactment of laws regarding the establishment of a state religion or the granting of religious freedom; the deprivation of freedom of speech or the deprivation of press freedom; or the deprivation of the right of the people to participate in war gatherings and protest against the authorities, including the promotion of freedom of speech.
However, Wei Dongdong also pointed out that the harm of courts to freedom of speech is not unlimited, and it needs to be weighed to determine how much persecution TikTok will cause to national security, and how much the ban on TikTok will have on freedom of speech. Judges need to weigh these two costs and determine whether the sacrifice of prosecutorial freedom of speech can meet the ratio.
For the outcome of the lawsuit, she analyzed that the best outcome is the court’s evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the bill. In addition, there are many options that TikTok can inherit and operate within the 270 day (or extended to 1 year) specified in the bill, such as the method house not supporting individual items in the bill. Whether or not TikTok can inherit the operation at this moment depends on whether it can obtain a temporary injunction from the court on the bill.
The worst-case outcome is that the court fully supports the bill, and TikTok will be required not to be sold to US companies. Wei Dongdong exaggerates that the fetters are often “penetrating”, and even if ByteDance is used to hold shares or master them in other situations, it can also be detected. But in fact, since the option of “not for sale” is not in ByteDance’s consideration, it means that the United States has banned TikTok.
A technology industry analyst told Interface News that short videos are still growing rapidly on a global scale. If the bill is passed, Meta and Google will no longer have TikTok as a strong competitor in North America and instead face unprecedented growth opportunities.
But the bill has yet to yield any other results. Wei Dongdong believes that in the short term, the focus of the US authorities is on national security. Based on a previous Cambridge analysis, the US authorities are particularly concerned about TikTok’s role in the upcoming US presidential election and social discourse, making it a target of criticism. WeChat, an action instant messaging software, has also received equal compensation.
But in the long run, there is a risk of survival and expansion after the bill is passed, which is a threat to all companies.
The bill has also sparked some controversy in the United States. American civil rights organizations, including the National Liberties League and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have repeatedly issued statements stating that the Criticism Act complies with the First Amendment to the Constitution and will set a precedent for the excessive control of communication media and speech by the US authorities.
At the beginning of May, Mitt Romney, a senator from Utah, made a public performance when talking with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The reason why he forcefully supported the ban on TikTok was that Palestine accounted for too much of TikTok in substance. This video has sparked a lot of controversy on American social media, with over 30000 reviews, most of which criticize American politicians for blocking platforms on the grounds of “national security”.
Musk, the owner of the social media platform X and CEO of Tesla, also wrote, “I thought TikTok should not be banned in the United States, even though related bans could cause losses for the X platform. This approach goes against freedom of speech and expression.”
