TikTok warns US Supreme Court on ban: If Congress could do this to TikTok, it could … – Times of India

TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance reportedly offered a warning during Supreme Court arguments over a law that would compel the sale of the short-video app or ban it in the United States. According to a report by news agency Reuters, the lawyer representing TikTok warned of broader implications for other companies. Noel Francisco, representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued that: “If Congress could do this to TikTok, it could come after other companies, too.”
The law, debated by the justices, sets a January 19 deadline for ByteDance to sell the platform or face a ban due to national security concerns. The companies argue that the law violates First Amendment free speech protections and seek at least a delay. Francisco argued that upholding this law could justify similar actions against other companies. He cited the example of AMC theaters, previously Chinese-owned, suggesting Congress could use this precedent to censor or promote specific films.
While some justices expressed First Amendment concerns, their questions suggested an inclination to uphold the law. TikTok boasts roughly 170 million U.S. users. Congress passed the measure with bipartisan support in 2024, citing fears of Chinese government espionage and influence operations.

Upset Tiktok content creators

Jeffrey Fisher, representing TikTok content creators, reportedly questioned why the law targeted only TikTok and not other Chinese online retailers like Temu, which has 70 million U.S. users. He questioned the logic of singling out TikTok while ignoring other platforms potentially subject to Chinese control.
As per the Reuters report, solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the law for the Biden administration, emphasized the urgency of the January 19 deadline to force ByteDance’s action. She argued that “foreign adversaries” wouldn’t willingly relinquish control over a major U.S. communication channel and that the deadline might be the necessary “jolt” for divestiture.
A January 19 ban would prevent new TikTok downloads on Apple and Google platforms, though existing users could initially still access the app. However, the app’s functionality would degrade over time without ongoing support.
The Court also debated whether potential Chinese propaganda or influence campaigns justified the ban. Francisco countered that content manipulation is widespread, citing various U.S. news outlets.
There was mention of the possibility of a change in administration affecting the law’s enforcement, with the suggestion that a new administration might pursue a different approach. A justice questioned whether the president could simply choose not to enforce the law, to which the Solicitor General acknowledged presidential enforcement discretion. The argument was made that a preliminary injunction could provide “breathing space.”