TikTok's long-running legal battle with the US government

TikTok and ByteDance are suing the US government over legislation that could ban the app, sparking a legal battle that could last until mid-2025.

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, based in China, filed a lawsuit on May 7 with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign-Controlled Apps Act (PAFACA) into law on April 24. PAFACA requires Bytedance to divest its stake in TikTok or face a ban in the United States.

"For the first time in history, the United States Congress has passed legislation that could permanently ban a platform nationwide," TikTok and ByteDance said in the lawsuit. PAFACA sets a January 19, 2025, deadline for ByteDance to sell TikTok, which the White House can extend by 90 days if the parties make "significant progress."

TikTok filed a lawsuit directly with the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals due to its "exclusive jurisdiction" nature. as provided for in PAFACA. Accordingly, only this court has the authority to hear complaints related to the law. This is also considered the second highest court in the US, after the Supreme Court, because it handles many lawsuits affecting people across the country.

According to experts, the move shows that ByteDance has no intention of selling TikTok shares and will start a protracted legal battle with the US government, which may require the US Supreme Court to intervene.

The TikTok logo is displayed on a phone screen taken in August 2022. Photo: Reuters

In the lawsuit, ByteDance and TikTok accuse the US government of "banning" a social media platform, violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution on freedom of speech. They also argue that ByteDance's divestment of TikTok is "commercially, technologically and legally impossible".

"If TikTok is banned, the 170 million users in the US who use the platform to interact in ways not possible elsewhere will be silenced," the two companies said, adding that they will continue to provide services to US users during the lawsuit.

Previously, the White House affirmed that the US government did not want to ban TikTok, and PAFACA was only a regulation on ownership of TikTok, ensuring that the company would no longer contact ByteDance due to national security issues.

The Biden administration has argued that a Chinese-based company like ByteDance owning TikTok would pose a national security threat to the United States, as user data could be transferred to Beijing at the behest of the Chinese government. Both ByteDance and TikTok have denied the allegation.

TikTok has been warned by the US government for years, when relations between Washington and Beijing were tense over many issues. In August 2020, then-US President Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring TikTok to cut ties with ByteDance within 45 days or be banned in the US. TikTok sued in the District of Columbia Federal Court and won, arguing that Trump's executive order violated the First Amendment on freedom of speech.

“If PAFACA were also viewed as a ban on free speech, it would face considerable skepticism from the courts,” said Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School.

TikTok also said the law affects American content creators who benefit economically from the platform. Regarding data security concerns, the company has responded that it has spent more than $2 billion to separate its US and Chinese operations. American user data is stored on US soil, by a US company and overseen by US employees, not transferred to China as the White House fears.

The legal battle will put the Biden administration at a disadvantage, as the White House will have to disclose classified and sensitive information to justify why PAFACA is necessary and justified. US officials have warned that TikTok’s algorithm poses a threat that could be used by the Chinese government for large-scale influence campaigns on the American public, but have not provided evidence.

“When it comes to political debate, Congress argues that restricting China’s access to US user data is in the national security interest,” Zick said. “But in court, the US government will have to provide evidence that these concerns are real, not speculative. The White House will also have to explain why it cannot and will not pursue a less coercive option.”

TikTok supporters gathered outside Capitol Hill, Washington on March 13. Photo: AFP

However, some experts say PAFACA has the makings to help the White House win the legal fight, and the Supreme Court may be willing to prioritize national security over protecting free speech.

“TikTok won its last challenge to Trump’s executive order, but this time the bipartisan Congressional approval could make it easier for judges to judge,” said Gautam Hans, a law professor at Cornell University in New York. “However, without public information about the risks to US national security, it will be difficult for courts to confirm the validity of such an unprecedented law.”

TikTok supporters praised the company’s legal action. “TikTok’s challenge to the law is important, and we expect them to be successful,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute for First Amendment Rights at Columbia University in New York.

According to Jaffer, the First Amendment means the government cannot restrict Americans' access to foreign ideas, information, or communications without a good reason. "And there is no such reason in this case," Jaffer added.

The U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals could move quickly and rule soon, and if TikTok decides to appeal, the Supreme Court could hear the case and rule in the second quarter of 2025, said Matthew Schettenhelm, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence.

“We believe TikTok has a 30% chance of winning, with the Supreme Court making its initial ruling in the fourth quarter of next year,” Schettenhelm said. “The White House has a better chance of winning, as the District of Columbia judges are not national security experts and will defer to Congress unless there is clear evidence of a First Amendment violation.”

Nhu Tam (According to Reuters, NBC News )

Source: https://vnexpress.net/cuoc-chien-phap-ly-dai-hoi-giua-tiktok-voi-chinh-phu-my-4743594.html