The Justice Department has fired back against the arguments of ByteDance, TikTok, and others opposing the much-publicized forced sale law and its quick-approaching January deadline. Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa
Five weeks ago, TikTok formally sought an injunction blocking the forced sale deadline it’s staring down in the U.S. Now, the Justice Department has fired back against the request and the arguments therein.
That 115-page retort, substantial portions of which were redacted from the public copy, was just recently submitted against the three consolidated petitions. One of those petitions is attributable to ByteDance and TikTok themselves, with the others having been introduced by creators and an entity called Based Politics.
Predictably, the petitions all aim to prevent ByteDance from being forced to divest from or shut down TikTok in the U.S. by January 19th (with a possible 90-day extension).
The rapidly approaching deadline was set in motion this past April, when President Biden signed the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act into law. Since then, ByteDance and TikTok have emphasized that a sale isn’t in the cards – with the requirement allegedly amounting to an outright ban as a result.
In keeping with the declaration, the ultra-popular app and its parent are vehemently opposing the law, including with the mentioned petitions as well as an aggressive public campaign. As we covered in late June, the petitions maintain that the law would prohibit TikTok altogether, that the platform has invested a considerable sum in U.S. data security, and that the measure violates the First Amendment.
Ahead of scheduled September 16th oral arguments, the DOJ has refuted these positions in the initially noted 115-page response.
Unsurprisingly, the lengthy brief underscores the federal government’s years-running “serious concerns about the threat to national security posed by TikTok.” Said concerns, as we’ve long reported, extend to the app’s alleged role in collecting sensitive user data that can then be accessed by the Chinese government, besides its algorithm’s alleged susceptibility to manipulation.
“That algorithm, which is based in China, is vulnerable to covert manipulation by the Chinese government to mold the content that American users receive,” the text reads. “Those covert efforts could be deployed as part of a malign influence campaign against the United States—for example, to promote disinformation or to amplify preexisting social divisions.”
For these and other reasons, the law at the courtroom confrontation’s center is designed to protect national security and doesn’t violate the First Amendment, the filing proceeds.
“And more generally,” the DOJ wrote, “any continued entanglement between TikTok and ByteDance would raise national-security concerns, given the porous and open relationship between the Chinese government and Chinese companies… The Act does not target activity protected by the First Amendment, as neither collection of data nor manipulation of an algorithm by a foreign power is protected activity.”
On cue, TikTok responded with a statement published on X, doubling down on its free-speech arguments and the perceived unconstitutionality of the law.
“Nothing in this brief changes the fact that the Constitution is on our side,” TikTok penned. “The TikTok ban would silence 170 million Americans’ voices, violating the First Amendment. As we’ve said before, the government has never put forth proof of its claims, including when Congress passed this unconstitutional law. Today, once again, the government is taking this unprecedented step while hiding behind secret information. We remain confident we will prevail in court.”
Running with the latter point, all eyes are now on the previously noted oral arguments, which are set to take place on September 16th. Hardly slowing down despite the far-from-ideal situation, TikTok is continuing to roll out artist-specific promotional initiatives, ink live-event partnerships, and make other moves in and around the music space.
