The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning TikTok unless its parent company, ByteDance, divests U.S. operations by January 19. The decision, rooted in national security concerns, mandates the removal of TikTok from app stores and hosting services, effectively shutting down the app in the U.S. unless ByteDance meets the law’s stringent requirements.
The ruling concludes a prolonged legal battle between the government and ByteDance over concerns that TikTok’s extensive data collection practices could expose Americans to surveillance by the Chinese government.
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression,” the court wrote in its opinion. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
The court acknowledged TikTok’s cultural and economic role but prioritized the risks associated with ByteDance’s ties to the Chinese government, emphasizing Congress’s role in addressing such threats.
A law passed in 2024, explicitly designates TikTok as a “foreign adversary-controlled application,” making it illegal to operate in the U.S. without severing connections to its Chinese parent company.
Related: Trump Weighs Last-Minute Intervention to Keep TikTok In The US
The ruling also clarified that the prohibition is narrowly focused on TikTok due to its unique risks. “The prohibitions prevent China from gathering data from U.S. TikTok users unless and until a qualified divestiture severs China’s control,” the court stated, highlighting the gravity of the security concerns at stake.
“The platform collects extensive personal information from and about its users… including ‘keystroke patterns and rhythms,’ and device and network data (including device contacts and calendars). If, for example, a user allows TikTok access to the user’s phone contact list… TikTok can access ‘any data stored in the user’s contact list,’ including names, contact information, contact photos, job titles, and notes.
Access to such detailed information about U. S. users, the Government worries, may enable ‘China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”
National Security vs. Free Expression
TikTok and a group of U.S. users challenged the law, claiming it infringed on First Amendment rights by restricting access to a platform widely used for communication and self-expression.
The app’s popularity has made it a vital space for content creators, businesses, and communities, with over 170 million users in the U.S. alone. Critics of the ban argue that such a measure sets a dangerous precedent for government intervention in digital platforms.
Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed skepticism about banning TikTok as a solution, noting, “Doesn’t the best remedy for problematic speech remain more speech?” TikTok’s legal team proposed solutions, such as including disclaimers about potential foreign influence, but these were dismissed as insufficient.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, countered this argument with an analogy: “Imagine if you walked into a store and I had a sign that said one of one million products in this store causes cancer. That is not going to put you on notice about what product is actually jeopardizing your health.”
The court ultimately determined that the law was content-neutral, focusing on ByteDance’s control over user data rather than the app’s content. Justice Sotomayor, concurring with the judgment, wrote that while TikTok’s operations involve expressive activity, the government had provided compelling evidence to justify the restrictions.
“Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns,” she noted.
TikTok’s Data Practices and Algorithm
Central to the government’s concerns are TikTok’s data collection practices and its algorithm, which tailors content recommendations based on user behavior. TikTok collects a wide range of user data, including precise location, keystroke patterns, and device information.
ByteDance’s legal obligations under Chinese intelligence laws could compel the company to share this data with the Chinese government, raising fears of espionage, blackmail, and corporate surveillance.
The recommendation algorithm is another focal point. ByteDance’s refusal to include the algorithm in any potential divestiture complicates negotiations, as it is integral to TikTok’s success. Without the algorithm, TikTok would lose much of its value and functionality.
Beijing’s export control laws further complicate matters by requiring government approval for the transfer of such technology. Analysts suggest that China’s reluctance to permit a sale may be a strategic calculation, betting on TikTok’s survival or its appeal in other markets.
Legislative and Judicial Context
The TikTok ban stems from the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, signed into law in April 2024. This legislation was a response to growing concerns over foreign-owned technology companies operating in the U.S., particularly those with ties to nations deemed adversarial.
Congress provided ByteDance with a clear path to avoid the ban through divestiture, but the company has consistently resisted, citing the algorithm as a non-negotiable asset.
The Supreme Court emphasized its deference to Congress in assessing national security risks. “We must accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments of Congress,” the court stated. “Sound policymaking often requires legislators to forecast future events and anticipate the likely impact of these events based on deductions and inferences for which complete empirical support may be unavailable.”
Implications of the Ruling
As the January 19 deadline approaches, TikTok faces a complete shutdown in the U.S. ByteDance has signaled its intent to comply with the ban by disabling the app for American users if a divestiture agreement is not reached.
This move would significantly impact content creators and businesses that rely on TikTok for engagement and income, highlighting the broader consequences of the ruling.
President-elect Donald Trump, set to take office on January 20, has indicated a willingness to intervene. In a Supreme Court filing, Trump requested a delay in the ruling to allow his administration time to broker a solution.
His position represents a stark reversal from his earlier efforts to ban TikTok during his first term, now framing the app as a valuable tool for engaging younger audiences.
ByteDance’s refusal to divest and the impending enforcement of the ban highlight the broader challenges of regulating foreign-owned technology platforms. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the tension between free expression and national security, setting a precedent for how governments may address similar cases in the future.