TikTok warns that it could “go dark” as the Supreme Court weighs the law of assignment or ban

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

US Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of TikTok’s efforts to throw out a federal divest-or-ban law on Friday, as the social media platform warned it could “go dark” in one of its largest markets in nine days.

Friday’s oral arguments focused on whether to allow a law to go into effect that would oblige TikTok’s Chinese parent. ByteDance to give up the platform by Jan. 19 — the day before Donald Trump is inaugurated as president — or face a national ban.

The legislation, approved with strong bipartisan support last year, was spurred by concerns that the video platform, which has exploded in popularity among teenagers and now has 170 million US users, could be brought from Peking for espionage purposes or to spread propaganda.

TikTok denied the charges and claimed the law violated First Amendment protections for free speech. Meanwhile, Trump vowed to “save the app,” and implored the Supreme Court to delay the legislative deadline to allow “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case” when he returns to the White House later this month.

However, the court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression in the United States, as well as global relations with China.

During oral arguments on Friday, judges from across the ideological spectrum repeatedly challenged TikTok’s arguments that the law was an assault on free speech, focusing instead on concerns that the platform is being used. “covert handling” and their data is vulnerable to harvesting by Beijing.

A lawyer for TikTok, Noel Francisco of Jones Day, said that the law singled out the company “for a uniquely harsh treatment, and it does so because the government fears that China could, in the future, indirectly pressure TikTok.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, a member of the court’s conservative wing, responded: “So we’re going to ignore the fact that the last parent is, in fact, involved in doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”

Justice Elena Kagan, who is part of the liberal wing of the court, conceded that the company “will suffer some serious (but) incidental effects.” If TikTok ultimately loses access to ByteDance’s algorithm through a divestiture, the law “still leaves TikTok the ability to do what any other actor in the United States can do, which is to find the best algorithm available “, he said.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US attorney general, underlined the government’s national security argument. Beijing’s efforts to undermine the United States by sharing “sensitive data” about Americans and its ability to compel companies to return such material “mean the Chinese government could weaponize TikTok at any time to harm the United States” , he said.

She said ByteDance had already agreed to the demands of Beijing, claiming that there was evidence that he had “implemented actions to misappropriate data. . . to follow the dissidents in Hong Kong (and) Uyghurs in China”.

ByteDance also “misused US data” when it admitted to inappropriately obtaining the data of two American journalists, including a Financial Times reporterhe added.

TikTok argued that a spin-off would be technically “unfeasible” before the deadline. Beijing, which would have a say under China’s export law, also said it opposed a sale and called the law a “blatant act of commercial theft.” Francisco, TikTok’s lawyer, reiterated the point on Friday, saying a divestment would be “extremely difficult in any time frame.”

Asked what will happen on January 19 if the company loses this case, Francisco replied: “We understand, we go dark.”

The court is expected to render a decision before the January 19 deadline, potentially sealing the fate of a major source of entertainment and news for young people, which has provided a livelihood to thousands of influencers while also attracting top dollar. of advertising.

Even if the court rules against TikTok, Trump could intervene once again in power, although it is not clear how. The president-elect’s sudden rescue mission from the video app came in part after he used the platform during last year’s election campaign to engage with young voters.

It’s also that Trump said he wants to preserve “competition” in a market dominated by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, after criticizing the US social network as “the enemy of the people” for alleged censorship of the conservative content.