TikTok’s future in the U.S. appeared uncertain on Friday after a federal appeals court rejected a legal challenge the company brought against a law that requires it to cut ties with its China-based parent company or be banned by mid-January
TikTok’s future in the U.S. appeared uncertain on Friday after a federal appeals court rejected a legal challenge to a law that requires the social media platform to cut ties with its China-based parent company or be banned by mid-January.
A panel of three judges on The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously that the law withstood constitutional scrutiny, rebuffing arguments from the two companies that the statute violated their rights and the rights of TikTok users in the U.S.
The government has said it wants ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to divest its stakes. But if it doesn’t and the platform goes away, it would have a seismic impact on the lives of content creators who rely on the platform for income as well as users who use it for entertainment and connection.
Here are some details on the ruling and what could happen next:
In their lawsuit, TikTok and ByteDance, which is also a plaintiff in the case, had challenged the law on various fronts, arguing in part that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and was an unconstitutional bill of attainder that unfairly targeted the two companies.
But the court sided with attorneys for the Justice Department who said that the government was attempting to address national security concerns and the way in which it chose to do so did not violate the constitution.
The Justice Department has argued in court that TikTok poses a national security risk due to its connections to China. Officials say that Chinese authorities can compel ByteDance to hand over information on TikTok’s U.S. patrons or use the platform to spread, or suppress, information. However, the U.S. hasn’t publicly provided examples of that happening.
The appeals court ruling, written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, said the law was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary.” The judges also rejected the claim that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
