This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9g91gn5ddo

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
TikTok makes last ditch legal bid to prevent imminent US ban Supreme Court hears TikTok's final plea against US ban
(about 5 hours later)
U.S. flag and TikTok logo are seen in this illustration taken January 8, 2025. TikTok users gathered outside the Supreme Court
TikTok will appear before the US Supreme Court on Friday in a last-ditch effort to overturn a ban, in a case testing the limits of national security and free speech. The future of the divest-or-ban law for TikTok now rests in the hands of the US Supreme Court after a three-hour hearing ahead of a looming deadline for the social media platform.
The popular social media platform is challenging a law passed last year ordering the firm to be split from its Chinese owner or be blocked from the US by 19 January. On Friday, the court's nine justices heard from lawyers representing TikTok, content creators and the US government over whether the law requiring its ban in the US - unless sold by parent company ByteDance - threatens free speech.
The US government is arguing that without a sale, TikTok could be used by China as a tool for spying and political manipulation. Noel Francisco, a former US solicitor general appearing for the platform, stressed the ban would undermine that constitutional right for some 170 million American users.
But TikTok rejects that claim, arguing it has been unfairly targeted and the measure violates the free speech of its some 170 million American users. A representative for platform creators argued they should be free to use the publisher of their choice.
Lower courts have sided with the government, but the case was complicated last month when President-elect Donald Trump weighed in on the dispute and asked for the enforcement of the law to be paused to grant him time to work out a deal. But the government urged the justices to uphold the law passed by Congress last year.
Analysts have said it was not clear what the Supreme Court will decide, but that reversing the prior ruling - even with a future president's blessing - would be unusual. It passed the law against TikTok with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties - a moment that marked the culmination of years of concern about the wildly popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and traction among young people.
"When you have a real government interest pitted against a real constitutional value, it ends up being a very close case," said Cardozo School of Law professor Saurabh Vishnubhakat. It requires ByteDance to sell TikTok in the US or cease operations on 19 January.
"But in such close cases, the government often gets the benefit of the doubt." On Friday, justice department lawyer Elizabeth B Prelogar argued before the court that ByteDance's ties to the Chinese government made it a national security risk.
A decision by Supreme Court could be made within days. She told the court that Beijing "could weaponise TikTok at any time to harm the United States".
She later said that a warning placed on TikTok to users would not be enough to address concerns about its ties to China, and would not adequately address the issues of national security.
Near the end of the hearing, Mr Francisco sought to drive home the argument that "the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us from speech".
"That's precisely what this law does from beginning to end."
But his arguments came under keen scrutiny from the justices, who returned time and again to the national security concerns that gave rise to the law in the first place.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh drilled into concerns the US government has raised about the data the app collects on its users and how that data might be used.
The risks related that seem like a "huge concern for the future of the country", he said.
US TikTok ban: When could the app be banned and will Trump save it?
The Trump question
In December, US President-elect Donald Trump urged the court to delay its decision until he returns to the White House to enable him to seek a "political solution" to resolve the issues at hand.
TikTok's lawyer told the court on Friday that, as he saw it, the platform would "go dark" on 19 January without intervention.
Ms Prelogar, arguing for the US justice department, said "nothing permanent" had to happen on that day and there was still time for a sale.
Forcing the app to go dark could be just the "jolt" ByteDance needs to seriously consider a sale, she said.
"It will fundamentally change the landscape with respect to what ByteDance might consider," she said, comparing the situation to "game of chicken" and one in which the US should not "blink first".
The justices and will now consider their decision. A ruling is expected in the coming days.
More than a hundred people braved freezing conditions in Washington DC to attend the hearing in person.
Danielle Ballesteros, a student at UC San Diego, said had been waiting outside the court since 06:30 local time.
"I feel like TikTok doesn't deserve to be banned," she told BBC News.
While admitting to using it "probably too much", she said she believes the app to be an important news source for her generation.
Watch: Can young Americans live without TikTok?Watch: Can young Americans live without TikTok?
Congress passed the law against TikTok last year with support from both the Democratic and Republican parties. The moment marked the culmination of years of concern about the wildly popular platform, which is known for its viral videos and traction among young people. The legislation passed by Congress does not forbid use of the app, but would require tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering it and inhibit updates, which analysts suggest would kill it over time.
The legislation does not forbid use of the app, but would require tech giants such as Apple and Google to stop offering it and inhibit updates, which analysts suggest would kill it over time.
TikTok is already banned from government devices in many countries, including in the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
The US argues that TikTok is a "grave" threat because the Chinese government could coerce its owner, ByteDance, to turn over user data or manipulate what it shows users to serve Chinese interests.The US argues that TikTok is a "grave" threat because the Chinese government could coerce its owner, ByteDance, to turn over user data or manipulate what it shows users to serve Chinese interests.
Last December, a three-judge appeals court decision upheld the law, noting China's record of acting through private companies and saying the measure was justified as "part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed" by the country.
TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence by the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates the First Amendment free speech rights of its users.TikTok has repeatedly denied any potential influence by the Chinese Communist Party and has said the law violates the First Amendment free speech rights of its users.
It has asked the Supreme Court to strike down the law as unconstitutional, or order its enforcement to be halted to enable a review of the legislation, which it said was based on "inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information". TikTok is already banned from government devices in many countries, including in the UK. It faces more complete bans in some countries, including India.
Trump is set to take office the day after the law would come into force. Last December, a three-judge appeals court decision upheld the law, noting China's record of acting through private companies and saying the measure was justified as "part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed" by the country.
He had called for banning the app in the US during his first term, but changed his tune on the campaign trail. Jeffrey L Fisher, a Stanford University law professor representing creators who sued over the law, told the court on Friday that the country has historically faced "ideological campaigns by foreign adversaries".
The brief that Trump's lawyers filed late last month did not take a position on legal dispute, but said the case presented "unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other". But he said that under the First Amendment, mere ideas do not represent a national security threat.
Noting his election win, it said Trump "opposes banning TikTok" and "seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office".
The filing came less than two weeks after Trump met TikTok's boss at Mar-a-Lago.
One of the president-elect's major donors, Jeff Yass of Susequehanna International Group, is a big stakeholder in the company.
However, Trump's nominee to serve as secretary of state, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, is in favour of banning the platform.
Investors who have expressed interest in buying the TikTok include Trump's former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former LA Dodgers owner Frank McCourt.
Attorney Peter Choharis, who is part of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, which filed its own brief supporting the US government's case, said it was hard to predict what the court - which has a conservative majority - would do, noting that several recent court decisions have overturned longstanding precedent.
But he said even if Trump was granted the opportunity to try to work out a deal, he expected a ban eventually.
"I don't see any president, including future President Trump, being able to resolve this in a way that's satisfactory for US national security because I don't think ByteDance will agree to it," he said.
The prospect of losing TikTok in the US has prompted outcry from many users, some of whom filed their own legal action last year.
In their filing they said the decision that TikTok could be shuttered "because ideas on that platform might persuade Americans of one thing or another - even of something potentially harmful to our democracy - is utterly antithetical to the First Amendment".
Other groups weighing in on the dispute include the American Civil Liberties Union and Freedom of the Press Foundation, which argued that the US had failed to present "credible evidence of ongoing or imminent harm" caused by the social media app.
Mr Choharis said the government had a right to take measures to defend itself, arguing that the fight was not "about speech" or "content" but about the Chinese government's role.
"It's about control and how the Chinese Communist Party specifically, and the Chinese government more generally, pursue strategic aims using many internet firms and especially social media companies - specifically including TikTok," he said.