NYC Gazette

The legal dispute between ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, and the United States government concluded with a Supreme Court decision in favor of the government. On January 17, 2025, the court upheld the ban on TikTok as per the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This mandates that TikTok cease operations in the US by January 19, 2025, unless sold to a new owner.

ByteDance had argued that this law infringed upon Americans' First Amendment rights. However, the US government maintained that TikTok's data collection posed a national security threat and that regulating its speech was not the intent.

Christopher Jon Sprigman, a professor at NYU’s School of Law, expressed concerns about free speech protections following this ruling. He stated, "The focus of the amicus brief was to describe the TikTok law for what it was—a gigantic speech restriction." Sprigman and other scholars filed an amicus brief emphasizing these issues.

Sprigman criticized the government's approach to restricting speech rights without substantial evidence or consideration of less restrictive alternatives like "Project Texas," which aimed to safeguard US user data under Oracle's supervision. The proposal was largely ignored by authorities.

In discussing whether this case is more about free speech than national security risk, Sprigman noted that one of the government's rationales was limiting China's ability to manipulate content on TikTok—an express speech restriction.

He also highlighted how this case differs from previous social media regulation efforts by pointing out there has never been an attempt to force divestiture like this before. He referenced past Texas and Florida laws aiming to regulate social media content moderation activities but noted their constitutionality remains questionable after recent Supreme Court opinions.

Regarding future implications for social media regulation, Sprigman remarked that while other platforms might feel reassured by the court's decision to distinguish TikTok due to its unique data capturing practices, they should still be concerned. "It’s hard to say if the court is being naive...but they’re wrong," he added.