TikTok ban

TikTok vaguely disputes report that it’s making a US-only app

bytedance, First Amendment, Policy, tiktok, TikTok ban / Ryan Harris / May 31, 2024

Exploring a different route —

TikTok has spent months separating code for US-only algorithm, insiders claim.

Ashley Belanger – May 31, 2024 6: 23 pm UTC

TikTok is now disputing a Reuters report that claims the short-video app is cloning its algorithm to potentially offer a different version of the app, which might degrade over time, just for US users.

Sources “with direct knowledge” of the project—granted anonymity because they’re not authorized to discuss it publicly—told Reuters that the TikTok effort began late last year. They said that the project will likely take a year to complete, requiring hundreds of engineers to separate millions of lines of code.

As these sources reported, TikTok’s tremendous undertaking could potentially help prepare its China-based owner ByteDance to appease US lawmakers who passed a law in April forcing TikTok to sell its US-based operations by January 19 or face a ban. But TikTok has maintained that the “qualified divestiture” required by the law would be impossible, and on Thursday, TikTok denied the accuracy of Reuters’ report while reiterating its stance that a sale is not in the cards.

“The Reuters story published today is misleading and factually inaccurate,” the TikTok Policy account posted on X (formerly Twitter). “As we said in our court filing, the ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act.”

It remains unclear precisely which parts of Reuters’ report are supposedly “misleading and factually inaccurate.” A Reuters spokesperson said that Reuters stands by its reporting.

A TikTok spokesperson told Ars that “while we have continued work in good faith to further safeguard the authenticity of the TikTok experience, it is simply false to suggest that this work would facilitate divestiture or that divestiture is even a possibility.”

TikTok is currently suing to block the US law on First Amendment grounds, and this week a court fast-tracked that legal challenge to attempt to resolve the matter before the law takes effect next year. Oral arguments are scheduled to start this September, with a ruling expected by December 6, which Reuters reported leaves time for a potential Supreme Court challenge to that ruling.

However, in the meantime, sources told Reuters that TikTok is seemingly exploring all its options to avoid running afoul of the US law, including separating its code base and even once considering open-sourcing parts of its algorithm to increase transparency.

Separating out the code is not an easy task, insiders told Reuters.

“Compliance and legal issues involved with determining what parts of the code can be carried over to TikTok are complicating the work,” one source told Reuters. “Each line of code has to be reviewed to determine if it can go into the separate code base.”

But creating a US-only content-recommendation algorithm could be worth it, as it could allow TikTok US to operate independently from the China-based TikTok app in a manner that could satisfy lawmakers worried about the Chinese government potentially spying on Americans through the app.

However, there’s no guaranteeing that the US-only version of TikTok’s content-recommendation algorithm will perform as well as the currently available app in the US, sources told Reuters. By potentially cutting off TikTok US from Chinese engineers who developed and maintain the algorithm, US users could miss out on code updates improving or maintaining desired functionality. That means TikTok’s popular For You Page recommendations may suffer, as “TikTok US may not be able to deliver the same level of performance as the existing TikTok,” sources told Reuters.

TikTok vaguely disputes report that it’s making a US-only app Read More »

TikTok owner has strong First Amendment case against US ban, professors say

Policy, TikTok ban, tiktok bytedance / Blake Jones / April 27, 2024

Illustration of the United States flag and a phone with a cracked screen running the TikTok app — Getty Images | NurPhoto

TikTok owner ByteDance is preparing to sue the US government now that President Biden has signed into law a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if its Chinese owner doesn’t sell the company within 270 days. While it’s impossible to predict the outcome with certainty, law professors speaking to Ars believe that ByteDance will have a strong First Amendment case in its lawsuit against the US.

One reason for this belief is that just a few months ago, a US District Court judge blocked a Montana state law that attempted to ban TikTok. In October 2020, another federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked a Trump administration order that would have banned TikTok from operating inside the US. TikTok also won a preliminary injunction against Trump in US District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2020.

“Courts have said that a TikTok ban is a First Amendment problem,” Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who writes frequent analysis of legal cases involving technology, told Ars this week. “And Congress didn’t really try to navigate away from that. They just went ahead and disregarded the court rulings to date.”

The fact that previous attempts to ban TikTok have failed is “pretty good evidence that the government has an uphill battle justifying the ban,” Goldman said.

TikTok users engage in protected speech

The Montana law “bans TikTok outright and, in doing so, it limits constitutionally protected First Amendment speech,” US District Judge Donald Molloy wrote in November 2023 when he granted a preliminary injunction that blocks the state law.

“The Montana court concluded that the First Amendment challenge would be likely to succeed. This will give TikTok some hope that other courts will follow suit with respect to a national order,” Georgetown Law Professor Anupam Chander told Ars.

Molloy’s ruling said that without TikTok, “User Plaintiffs are deprived of communicating by their preferred means of speech, and thus First Amendment scrutiny is appropriate.” TikTok’s speech interests must be considered “because the application’s decisions related to how it selects, curates, and arranges content are also protected by the First Amendment,” the ruling said.

Banning apps that let people talk to each other “is categorically impermissible,” Goldman said. While the Chinese government engaging in propaganda is a problem, “we need to address that as a government propaganda problem, and not just limited to China,” he said. In Goldman’s view, a broader approach should also be used to stop governments from siphoning user data.

TikTok and opponents of bans haven’t won every case. A federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of Texas Governor Greg Abbott in December 2023. But that ruling only concerned a ban on state employees using TikTok on government-issued devices rather than a law that potentially affects all users of TikTok.

Weighing national security vs. First Amendment

US lawmakers have alleged that the Chinese Communist Party can weaponize TikTok to manipulate public opinion and access user data. But Chander was skeptical of whether the US government could convincingly justify its new law in court on national security grounds.

“Thus far, the government has refused to make public its evidence of a national security threat,” he told Ars. “TikTok put in an elaborate set of controls to insulate the app from malign foreign influence, and the government hasn’t shown why those controls are insufficient.”

The ruling against Trump by a federal judge in Pennsylvania noted that “the Government’s own descriptions of the national security threat posed by the TikTok app are phrased in the hypothetical.”

Chander stressed that the outcome of ByteDance’s planned case against the US is difficult to predict, however. “I would vote against the law if I were a judge, but it’s unclear how judges will weigh the alleged national security risks against the real free expression incursions,” he said.

Montana case may be “bellwether”

There are at least three types of potential plaintiffs that could lodge constitutional challenges to a TikTok ban, Goldman said. There’s TikTok itself, the users of TikTok who would no longer be able to post on the platform, and app stores that would be ordered not to carry the TikTok app.

Montana was sued by TikTok and users. Lead plaintiff Samantha Alario runs a local swimwear business and uses TikTok to market her products.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen appealed the ruling against his state to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Montana case could make it to the Supreme Court before there is any resolution on the enforceability of the US law, Goldman said.

“It’s possible that the Montana ban is actually going to be the bellwether that’s going to set the template for the constitutional review of the Congressional action,” Goldman said.

TikTok owner has strong First Amendment case against US ban, professors say Read More »

ByteDance unlikely to sell TikTok, as former Trump official plots purchase

Activision Blizzard, bytedance, china, Policy, steven Mnuchin, tiktok, TikTok ban / Mike M. / March 14, 2024

Former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is reportedly assembling an investor group to buy TikTok as the US comes closer to enacting legislation forcing the company to either divest from Chinese ownership or face a nationwide ban.

“I think the legislation should pass, and I think it should be sold,” Mnuchin told CNBC Thursday. “It’s a great business, and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok.”

Mnuchin currently leads Liberty Strategic Capital, which describes itself as “a Washington DC-based private equity firm focused on investing in dynamic global technology companies.”

According to CNBC, there is already “common ground between Liberty and ByteDance,” as Softbank—which invested in ByteDance in 2018—partnered with Liberty in 2021, contributing what Financial Times reported was an unknown amount to Mnuchin’s $2.5 billion private equity fund.

TikTok has made no indication that it would consider a sale should the legislation be enacted. Instead, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is continuing to rally TikTok users to oppose the legislation. In a TikTok post viewed by 3.8 million users, the CEO described yesterday’s vote passing the law in the US House of Representatives as “disappointing.”

“This legislation, if signed into law, WILL lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States,” Chew said, seeming to suggest that TikTok’s CEO is not considering a sale to be an option.

But Mnuchin expects that TikTok may be forced to choose to divest—as the US remains an increasingly significant market for the company. If so, he plans to be ready to snatch up the popular app, which TikTok estimated boasts 170 million American monthly active users.

“This should be owned by US businesses,” Mnuchin told CNBC. “There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China.”

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said that a TikTok ban in the US would hurt the US, while little evidence backs up the supposed national security threat that lawmakers claim is urgent to address, the BBC reported. Wang has accused the US of “bullying behavior that cannot win in fair competition.” This behavior, Wang said, “disrupts companies’ normal business activity, damages the confidence of international investors in the investment environment, and damages the normal international economic and trade order.”

Liberty and Mnuchin were not immediately available to comment on whether investors have shown any serious interest so far.

However, according to the Los Angeles Times, Mnuchin has already approached a “bunch of people” to consider investing. Mnuchin told CNBC that TikTok’s technology would be the driving force behind wooing various investors.

“It would be a combination of investors, so there would be no one investor that controls this,” Mnuchin told CNBC. “The issue is all about the technology. This needs to be controlled by US businesses.”

Mnuchin’s group would likely face competition to buy TikTok. ByteDance—which PitchBook data indicates was valued at $223.5 billion in 2023—should also expect an offer from former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, The Wall Street Journal reported.

It’s unclear how valuable TikTok is to ByteDance, CNBC reported, and Mnuchin has not specified what potential valuation his group would anticipate. But if TikTok’s algorithm—which was developed in China—is part of the sale, the price would likely be higher than if ByteDance refused to sell the tech fueling the social media app’s rapid rise to popularity.

In 2020, ByteDance weighed various ownership options while facing a potential US ban under the Trump administration, The New York Times reported. Mnuchin served as Secretary of the Treasury at that time. Although ByteDance ended up partnering with Oracle to protect American TikTok users’ data instead, people briefed on ByteDance’s discussions then confirmed that ByteDance was considering carving out TikTok, potentially allowing the company to “receive new investments from existing ByteDance investors.”

The Information provided a breakdown of the most likely investors to be considered by ByteDance back in 2020. Under that plan, though, ByteDance intended to retain a minority holding rather than completely divesting ownership, the Times reported.

ByteDance unlikely to sell TikTok, as former Trump official plots purchase Read More »

Bill that could ban TikTok passes in House despite constitutional concerns

bytedance, china, Chinese Communist Party, First Amendment, Joe Biden, Policy, tiktok, TikTok ban, us constitution / Ari B / March 13, 2024

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill with a vote of 352–65 that could block TikTok in the US. Fifteen Republicans and 50 Democrats voted in opposition, and one Democrat voted present, CNN reported.

TikTok is not happy. A spokesperson told Ars, “This process was secret and the bill was jammed through for one reason: it’s a ban. We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents, and realize the impact on the economy, 7 million small businesses, and the 170 million Americans who use our service.”

Lawmakers insist that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is not a ban. Instead, they claim the law gives TikTok a choice: either divest from ByteDance’s China-based owners or face the consequences of TikTok being cut off in the US.

Under the law—which still must pass the Senate, a more significant hurdle, where less consensus is expected and a companion bill has not yet been introduced—app stores and hosting services would face steep consequences if they provide access to apps controlled by US foreign rivals. That includes allowing the app to be updated or maintained by US users who already have the app on their devices.

Violations subject app stores and hosting services to fines of $5,000 for each individual US user “determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary-controlled application.” With 170 million Americans currently on TikTok, that could add up quickly to eye-popping fines.

If the bill becomes law, app stores and hosting services would have 180 days to limit access to foreign adversary-controlled apps. The bill specifically names TikTok and ByteDance as restricted apps, making it clear that lawmakers intend to quash the alleged “national security threat” that TikTok poses in the US.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a proponent of the bill, has said that “foreign adversaries like China pose the greatest national security threat of our time. With applications like TikTok, these countries are able to target, surveil, and manipulate Americans.” The proposed bill “ends this practice by banning applications controlled by foreign adversaries of the United States that pose a clear national security risk.”

McMorris Rodgers has also made it clear that “our goal is to get this legislation onto the president’s desk.” Joe Biden has indicated he will sign the bill into law, leaving the Senate as the final hurdle to clear. Senators told CNN that they were waiting to see what happened in the House before seeking a path forward in the Senate that would respect TikTok users’ civil liberties.

Attempts to ban TikTok have historically not fared well in the US, with a recent ban in Montana being reversed by a federal judge last December. Judge Donald Molloy granted TikTok’s request for a preliminary injunction, denouncing Montana’s ban as an unconstitutional infringement of Montana-based TikTok users’ rights.

More recently, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has slammed House lawmakers for rushing the bill through Congress, accusing lawmakers of attempting to stifle free speech. ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff said in a press release that lawmakers were “once again attempting to trade our First Amendment rights for cheap political points during an election year.”

“Just because the bill sponsors claim that banning TikTok isn’t about suppressing speech, there’s no denying that it would do just that,” Leventoff said.

Bill that could ban TikTok passes in House despite constitutional concerns Read More »

TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms

bytedance, child safety, class action lawsuit, montana, Policy, social media platforms, tiktok, TikTok ban / Ryan Harris / December 15, 2023

Or forever hold your peace —

TikTok may be seeking to avoid increasingly high costs of mass arbitration.

Ashley Belanger – Dec 15, 2023 6: 57 pm UTC

Some TikTok users may have skipped reviewing an update to TikTok’s terms of service this summer that shakes up the process for filing a legal dispute against the app. According to The New York Times, changes that TikTok “quietly” made to its terms suggest that the popular app has spent the back half of 2023 preparing for a wave of legal battles.

In July, TikTok overhauled its rules for dispute resolution, pivoting from requiring private arbitration to insisting that legal complaints be filed in either the US District Court for the Central District of California or the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Legal experts told the Times this could be a way for TikTok to dodge arbitration claims filed en masse that can cost companies millions more in fees than they expected to pay through individual arbitration.

Perhaps most significantly, TikTok also added a section to its terms that mandates that all legal complaints be filed within one year of any alleged harm caused by using the app. The terms now say that TikTok users “forever waive” rights to pursue any older claims. And unlike a prior version of TikTok’s terms of service archived in May 2023, users do not seem to have any options to opt out of waiving their rights.

TikTok did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment, but has previously defended its “industry-leading safeguards for young people,” the Times noted.

Lawyers told the Times that these changes could make it more challenging for TikTok users to pursue legal action at a time when federal agencies are heavily scrutinizing the app and complaints about certain TikTok features allegedly harming kids are mounting.

In the past few years, TikTok has had mixed success defending against user lawsuits filed in courts. In 2021, TikTok was dealt a $92 million blow after settling a class-action lawsuit filed in an Illinois court, which alleged that the app illegally collected underage TikTok users’ personal data. Then, in 2022, TikTok defeated a Pennsylvania lawsuit alleging that the app was liable for a child’s death because its algorithm promoted a deadly “Blackout Challenge.” The same year, a bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general announced an investigation to determine whether TikTok violated consumer laws by allegedly putting young users at risk.

Section 230 shielded TikTok from liability in the 2022 “Blackout Challenge” lawsuit, but more recently, a California judge ruled last month that social media platforms—including TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube—couldn’t use a blanket Section 230 defense in a child safety case involving hundreds of children and teens allegedly harmed by social media use across 30 states.

Some of the product liability claims raised in that case are tied to features not protected by Section 230 immunity, the judge wrote, opening up social media platforms to potentially more lawsuits focused on those features. And the Times reported that investigations like the one launched by the bipartisan coalition “can lead to government and consumer lawsuits.”

As new information becomes available to consumers through investigations and lawsuits, there are concerns that users may become aware of harms that occurred before TikTok’s one-year window to file complaints and have no path to seek remedies.

However, it’s currently unclear if TikTok’s new terms will stand up against legal challenges. University of Chicago law professor Omri Ben-Shahar told the Times that TikTok might struggle to defend its new terms in court, and it looks like TikTok is already facing pushback. One lawyer representing more than 1,000 guardians and minors claiming TikTok-related harms, Kyle Roche, told the Times that he is challenging TikTok’s updated terms. Roche said that the minors he represents “could not agree to the changes” and intended to ignore the updates, instead bringing their claims through private arbitration.

TikTok has also spent the past year defending against attempts by lawmakers to ban the China-based app in the US over concerns that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may use the app to surveil Americans. Congress has weighed different bipartisan bills with names like “ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act” and “RESTRICT Act,” each intent to lay out a legal path to ban TikTok nationwide over alleged national security concerns.

So far, TikTok has defeated every attempt to widely ban the app, but that doesn’t mean lawmakers have any plans to stop trying. Most recently, a federal judge stopped Montana’s effort to ban TikTok statewide from taking effect, but a more limited TikTok ban restricting access on state-owned devices was upheld in Texas, Reuters reported.

TikTok requires users to “forever waive” rights to sue over past harms Read More »