TikTok's Legal Wins Highlight the Challenges of Banning the App
TikTok's recent court wins pose a challenge to critics attempting to ban the app A state judge in Indiana dismissed one lawsuit, while a federal judge blocked Montana's statewide ban Discover the journey, the hurdles faced at the state level, and what lies ahead
TikTok has achieved back-to-back court victories this week, making it more challenging for the company's critics to restrict its operations. A state judge in Indiana dismissed a lawsuit against the popular short-form video app, while a federal judge blocked a first-of-its-kind Montana law that aimed to ban TikTok statewide. Although the final outcomes of these cases are pending, the initial results in both states reveal that the controversial politics surrounding TikTok were overshadowed by the fundamental principles of American law.
Attempts to restrict TikTok have failed basic legal checks and have been deemed politically motivated by legal experts. According to Thursday's rulings, it was found that the state's efforts did not comply with the First Amendment and lacked jurisdiction. Law professor Eric Goldman stated that the attempts to regulate TikTok were pretextual and merely for political show, appearing unreasonable when presented to a non-political decisionmaker.
The fact that the states couldn't overcome even the most basic legal obstacles emphasizes the difficulty facing policymakers as they try to define a specific problem that their legal tools can address.
The two cases have different origins, with one being a lawsuit in Indiana seeking court-ordered fines and restrictions on TikTok for allegedly violating state consumer protection laws. The other case in Montana was brought by TikTok and a group of content creators after the state enacted a bill, SB419, that would have prohibited the app from operating on personal electronic devices within state lines.
Both cases reflect concerns expressed by government officials at all levels in the United States about TikTok's ties to China through its parent company, ByteDance. Policymakers have alleged that Chinese intelligence laws could force ByteDance to expose TikTok's US user data to the Chinese government, but so far US officials have not publicly presented any concrete evidence of unauthorized government data access.
Efforts to ban TikTok in the US have circulated since the Trump administration, but legal challenges have thwarted most attempts. The app remains accessible on personal devices across the country, with only limited restrictions on government devices. Despite this, TikTok has continued to expand its influence, boasting 150 million monthly active users in the United States and serving as a crucial source of income for creators, small business owners, and other users.
District Judge Donald Molloy wrote in his opinion Thursday that banning the app in Montana would directly infringe on some creators' First Amendment rights due to the dependence they have on TikTok.
Adobe Stock
Montanas TikTok ban leaves users, business owners reeling
By banning TikTok, the Legislature has violated the First Amendment rights of the user plaintiffs and disrupted a vital source of income for many. As a result, the plaintiffs have proven that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm due to the law, as stated by Molloy.
According to Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project, the Montana ruling demonstrates the stringent limitations imposed by the US Constitution on widespread censorship of this nature.
State-level efforts to address national issues have faltered due to a common theme found in both cases: states have attempted to turn a national issue into a local one, often overstepping their authority in the process. This overlooked aspect of the constitutional findings highlights a more subtle, yet equally significant, reason for the lack of success in state-level initiatives.
Molloy criticized Montana's justification for passing SB419, highlighting that the state did not have the constitutional authority to intervene in foreign affairs when it banned TikTok due to its connection to China.
The Indiana ruling reached the same conclusion, stating that while state officials made several accusations that TikTok deceived the public about its business practices, they failed to demonstrate any connection to Indiana that would establish the state court's jurisdiction over the company.
"In fact, there are no claims that users in Indiana were even aware of these supposed misstatements, let alone used them as a basis for downloading and using the TikTok platform," Judge Jennifer DeGroote stated in her opinion.
DeGroote also pointed out that the availability of TikTok on third-party app stores for Hoosiers does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over TikTok, as the State has not claimed that TikTok specifically targeted Indiana. The rulings collectively establish significant constraints on how states can pursue legal action against TikTok, limiting their ability to target the company based on its ties to China or public criticism of the app.
Goldman pointed out that the state-level efforts in Indiana and Montana ultimately failed for various reasons, citing a multitude of legal obstacles that any anti-TikTok initiatives would have to overcome. He emphasized that policymakers should heed these challenges.
University of Colorado law professor Blake Reid noted that the judges' opinions on many core legal principles were clear and well-reasoned, indicating little need to weigh in on the central political argument of whether TikTok poses a danger to the public. "These judges are likely trying to avoid getting involved in the political fight," Reid said, emphasizing that the Montana opinion efficiently dismantles a high-profile, politically charged law using a tight and narrow approach to avoid breaking new ground that might lead to a successful appeal.
Other courts will probably pay attention to the Montana injunction, according to Goldman. It may not be considered a precedent, but Molloys argument will likely be convincing to other judges examining similar cases, he explained. The impact of the Indiana decision on a national scale is less certain, Goldman added, due to the typical lack of visibility of state court rulings and the variation of state laws from one jurisdiction to another.
Photo taken on Oct. 17, 2021 shows the TikTok booth at the 2021 Hangzhou International E-commerce Expo in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang Province.
CFOTO/Future Publishing/Getty Images
TikTok may be too large to prohibit, irrespective of lawmakers' statements. Instead of risking violating the Constitution with TikTok-specific bans and restrictions, Goldman suggested that policymakers should refocus on improving data privacy rights for Americans as a whole, implementing consistent regulations for all internet companies to prevent any government - Chinese or otherwise - from accessing data without authorization.
"We need to have a serious conversation about the collection and access of data by social media apps, given that they gather information that is highly valuable to governments. It is important to discuss how to limit the collection of data, if necessary, and also how to restrict government access to that data," he said.
