TikTok appeals to have Trump – or Supreme Court – decide its fate later
- Reference: 1733812153
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/12/10/tiktok_appeal/
- Source link:
The shutdown was ordered after the Biden administration passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PFACAA). TikTok and its parent ByteDance [1]used the courts to challenge the law's constitutional validity in a series of cases that last Friday [2]saw the law – and ban – upheld.
But there are still two possible avenues of appeal TikTok is yet to explore.
[3]
One is president-elect Donald Trump, who called for the app's banning when last resident in the White House. In a recent interview he said he thinks TikTok is both bad and good – but that one of its good aspects is it takes audience away from Facebook, which he considers "an enemy of the people."
[4]
[5]
A set of emergency filings lobbed into the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Monday point out that the date on which the current order requires TikTok to stop Tikking and Tokking in the Land of the Free is January 19, 2025. Trump's second inauguration will take place the next day. TikTok argues the timing is so tight the new administration should have a role to play.
The other avenue of appeal is the US Supreme Court.
[6]
TikTok and Caymans-incorporated ByteDance have already signalled their intention to appeal, on grounds that there remain legal matters to test and that its 170-million-plus US users consider the Court a suitable venue for consideration of whether the decision to ban the app is sound.
The filings also address national security – the rationale for the US ban of the service – by arguing TikTok poses "no imminent threat." TikTok argues that the Biden administration alleged "China 'could' engage in certain harmful conduct through TikTok, not that China is currently doing so or will soon do so." A little delay in turning off the app in the US therefore couldn't hurt, could it?
TikTok wants the Court of Appeals to decide the matter by December 16.
[7]Trump's pick to run the FCC has told us what he plans: TikTok ban, space broadband, and Section 230 reform
[8]Australia passes law to keep under-16s off social media – good luck with that, mate
[9]Canada closes TikTok's offices but leaves using the app a matter of 'personal choice'
[10]Your air fryer might be snitching on you to China
Government lawyers have opposed TikTok's application. A [11]letter [PDF] to the Court argues that it should butt out and let TikTok go to the Supreme Court so that body has more time in which to consider the matter before the January 19 deadline.
Another wild card is that the law banning TikTok includes a clause that allows a one-off 90-day stay on its orders – which would mean a final decision lands on the future Trump administration's to-do list.
[12]
While the lawyers do their thing, TikTok continues to mobilize those who make money on the platform to lobby for its continuing operation. However, the New York Times [13]reports TikTok creators' agents are warning them not to make major purchases – as many online personalities increase their use of rival platforms. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/07/tiktok_bytedance_sue_usa/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/12/06/appeals_court_backs_tiktok_ban/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z1gfVdFJjItPH3TcefDsTQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z1gfVdFJjItPH3TcefDsTQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z1gfVdFJjItPH3TcefDsTQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z1gfVdFJjItPH3TcefDsTQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/19/brendan_carr_fcc/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/28/australia_children_social_media_ban/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/08/canada_closes_tiktok_offices/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/05/air_fryer_spying/
[11] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40861/gov.uscourts.cadc.40861.2088549.0.pdf
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z1gfVdFJjItPH3TcefDsTQAAAMs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/business/tiktok-temporary-pause-ban-supreme-court-trump.html
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: What are they actually worried about
Because it means selling out and so setting a precedent that should never occur?
It means that ANY company being successful in the US market will be forced to share their profits with some US entity that has contributed exactly zero to its success. In this case, most likely some Trump company that needs propping up because "business man*" Trump couldn't even run a casino at a profit.
* That's sarcasm, obviously
Re: What are they actually worried about
...in the US market will be forced to share their profits with some US entity...
Oh you mean like the 51% Chinese JV arrangement that all (but Musk, for some reason) have to agree to?
Re: What are they actually worried about
Exactly, and they've been whinging about that for years. Hopefully they will now shut up.
You have that in quite a few countries, not just China, I think Thailand is the same. Singapore possibly as well - it's been a while since I looked at this.
Re: What are they actually worried about
I find it difficult to keep up these days, but free trade is apparently so last century. However, it's not as if the precedent doesn't already exist in China - where it's quite normal for overseas investors to be required to form joint ventures with local partners: Tesla is one of the few examples that managed to dodge that bullet. And it's a similar picture in many developing countries that want some of that "investment" to stick and not merely move on to the next source of cheap labour when local wages start to rise.
I think there's an argument that the Anglosphere has been rather too lax in its pursuit of foreign investment at any cost with consequences such as Thames Water and the dispiriting sight of Keir Starmer touring the despots of the Middle East with his begging bowl exended.
EDIT: Sorry, Paul Crawford, posts crossed. Basically, what you said...
Re: What are they actually worried about
ARM is another one. And that one worked out good...
Re: What are they actually worried about
So no arm twisting?
(sorry, it was stronger than me) :)
Re: What are they actually worried about
I think your question stems from a misunderstanding of what the law as written says they need to do.
"Why don't TikTok just make the changes that were requested and continue to do business ?"
Because the changes that are required are to either shut down or to sell their app. If they shut down, they get no more money. If they sell their app, they get a one-time bit of money, but no ongoing revenue from a very profitable thing. That thing works the same way globally (except for China). That means that they either have to sell only the US part to a company which will now be able to compete against them with an identical product to theirs, or they have to sell their operations in every country except China in order not to create that mess for themselves. The least damaging situation for TikTok's current owners is a years-long administrative morass, which they don't have enough time to complete anyway, and would earn them far less than they would earn from operating their app normally. I'm not surprised in the least that they hate this and want to prevent it; they have no other good options. That doesn't mean that they'll get what they want, but they've been backed into a corner and predictably chose to try fighting their way out as hard as they can.
"What is it that they are actually fighting against ? Is it just the case of having a US based headquarters or is there something else going on which is less obvious to me?"
It's not about where their headquarters is. It is that the current owners, at least the Chinese ones, are supposed to not own it anymore. This law intends to remove them from control, which means removing them from ownership. They do not like this idea because they see TikTok as theirs, since they created and paid for it, and they want to keep running it. The law that was written does not have any middle ground for them.
A pox on them all
It is sad that debates about who owns these privacy vampires is getting far more coverage and interest than what they are doing to society at large in the first place.
"an enemy of the people"
That said by a troll who doesn't give a damn about "the people".
Re: "an enemy of the people"
It was the most flattering comment about faeces book I've read in a long while
What are they actually worried about
Why don't TikTok just make the changes that were requested and continue to do business ? Obviously the will continue to make money considering their popularity..
What is it that they are actually fighting against ? Is it just the case of having a US based headquarters or is there something else going on which is less obvious to me?