TikTok

Justice Elena Kagan suggests ByteDance could find alternatives to its current ownership structure of TikTok — questioning whether banning a particular corporate structure is fundamentally a regulation of TikTok’s speech. Justice Roberts follows up on the corporate structure question. “I’m not sure there’s another case” where the court has considered something a direct speech restriction “when it’s based on derivative regulation of corporate structure of somebody else.”

“Am I right that the algorithm is the speech here?” conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks. She says that Congress’ concern is “the covert content manipulation piece of the algorithm” and suggests that stems from China-based ByteDance’s speech. Barrett wrote in the court’s NetChoice case that foreign corporations don’t have First Amendment rights.

Several justices have raised questions about how many degrees of separation lie between TikTok (a US company) and the Chinese Communist party, and Justice Neil Gorsuch asks whether China would let ByteDance sell TikTok. “It would be exceedingly difficult under any timeframe” to sell, says Francisco — not because China controls it, but for logistical reasons like carving out US videos from TikTok’s global platform.

In a hypothetical, conservative Justice Samuel Alito says the court has never held that foreign governments have free speech rights in the US, and asks, “why would it all change if it were simply hidden under some sort of contrived corporate structure?” TikTok’s attorney says it’s because TikTok is a bona fide US company.

We’re getting a question about past cases involving limits on foreign media ownership — Francisco says these involved media like radio, where the government had greater discretion because of basic spectrum scarcity, so they aren’t good points of comparison. Broadcast regulations are a big deal recently.

Goodwin says she gets 98 percent of her business for her greeting card and gifts company through TikTok and couldn’t sustain it without the app. “Pivoting is not really an option at this point,” she says. After building a company and community on TikTok, “it’s gonna be a heck of a lot lonelier” if it’s banned.

The prime metaphor in the case so far, raised by TikTok’s attorney, is an analogy about whether the government could ban The Washington Post from operating if the Chinese government kidnapped Jeff Bezos’ children and forced him to print propaganda. (He’s against it.) Regardless of the questions over speech and TikTok, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seems pretty skeptical of his claim that the government couldn’t meaningfully step in.

Roberts raises the national security concerns of ByteDance working from China. “Do you dispute that ByteDance has ultimate control” of TikTok? Francisco does dispute it, but he says, “I don’t think it would change the analysis.”

TikTok attorney Noel Francisco is making opening arguments on the livestream — stressing the First Amendment’s role in the case and the potential speech burdens for TikTok and its users. He’s arguing that TikTok’s speech is, in particular, its recommendation algorithm, which is the least likely piece to be approved for a sale by the Chinese government.

“If you want people to care, you’ve got to show that you care,” says South Carolina-based Baus. “It’s all about making noise.” Baus has been updating her nearly 800,000 TikTok followers along the way. “This isn’t just something small. This isn’t just something I’m brushing to the side. I’m fighting for them as well.”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from TikTok, a group of TikTok users, and the US government before deciding whether to block a law that will otherwise take effect on January 19th. You can listen on C-Span or the Supreme Court’s site, starting at 10AM ET.

“While we do not have specific on when the court will make its ruling, you can be assured that we will be transparent on the next steps as soon as we have a decision,” writes TikTok’s Kim Farrell, according to a screenshot of a message shared by Andru Edwards.

Amanda Mull at Bloomberg has a nice summary of how consumer culture might change if TikTok exits the US later this month. It’s not just influencers who’d feel the effects — brands pushing products, media covering trends, and businesses relying on the app’s roulette of virality are surely worried.

The country’s highest court found that TikTok failed to take “necessary and adequate measures” to stop the spread of viral challenges, which authorities blamed for the death of three adolescents who’d ingested toxic chemicals, reports Voice of America.

So reports CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. It seems inevitable that Trump will try to broker a sale to a US company and take credit for “saving” TikTok, but the open questions are whether China allows that to happen, and who might be able to afford it.

The Supreme Court will consider TikTok’s case against a divest-or-ban law early next year, and a wave of filings has hit the docket this afternoon — from the parties involved as well as numerous institutions and public figures, including President-elect Donald Trump. If you want a firsthand look, the full list is linked below.

Trump said he’s “gonna have to start thinking about TikTok” this weekend while speaking at an event in Phoenix, Arizona. He added, “Maybe we gotta keep this sucker around for a little while.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Knight First Amendment Institute are asking the court to pause the law that could ban TikTok on January 19th while considering the case. They “urge the Court to see the Act for what it is: a sweeping ban on free expression that triggers and fails the most exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment.”

With roughly one month until the “ban” phase of the US TikTok “divest or ban” law, TikTok’s making a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court:

The same three judges who ruled last week that a TikTok divest-or-ban law is Constitutional ruled against the company again today and declined to temporarily pause it from taking effect on January 19th.

Leaders of the House panel that led the divest-or-ban bill against TikTok warned the CEOs to be ready to comply once the bill takes effect — assuming it’s not stopped before then. The warning comes after a federal court ruled the bill is constitutional. Under the law, app marketplaces could get in trouble for letting users download the app.

The Canadian government ordered the shutdown of TikTok’s Canadian operations last month, though the shutdown wouldn’t bar Canadians from using the app.

TikTok is running out of time and legal recourse to avoid a US ban unless its China-based parent company ByteDance sells it. Here’s the tl;dr on why a three-judge panel unanimously ruled to uphold the law that could expel TikTok, and what comes next.

The company announced today it’s opening up its AI ads tool to all advertisers — so prepare to see more AI content on your feed.

Well, four people close to Trump say he’s going to try and stop it from happening, reports the Washington Post. It’s unclear what, exactly, that means. TikTok faces a ban unless its parent company, ByteDance, sells it by January 19th — the day before Trump’s inauguration.