On Friday morning in Washington, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a law that could potentially lead to a ban on TikTok in the United States. After more than two hours of discussion, the justices are now responsible for determining the app’s future.
The outcome is particularly awaited by content creators and small business owners reliant on TikTok for their livelihoods. Skip Chapman, who co-owns KAFX Body in New Jersey, expressed concern, noting that a significant portion of his sales—between 80% and 90%—comes from the platform. Despite spending six months trying to diversify to other marketplaces like Amazon, he has yet to achieve similar success. “There’s really no replacement for this app,” Chapman lamented. “Seven million small business owners are really holding their breath right now as we wait and see what happens.”
Lee Zavorskas, a TikTok creator and licensed esthetician from New Hampshire, shared that nearly 50% of her income is generated through the app. The anxiety surrounding the case caused her to avoid listening to the oral arguments, opting to focus on building a YouTube channel instead.
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a quick decision due to the urgency of the case, with the law set to take effect in under two weeks. This urgency may lead the justices to act sooner than their usual months-long timeline for deliberations.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar concluded her arguments by emphasizing that while many teenagers on TikTok might not be aware of national security risks, the data collected could pose significant dangers in the future, particularly if these young users end up with roles in the military or government. Prelogar asserted, “For the Chinese government to have this vast trove of incredibly sensitive data about them… exposes our nation as a whole to a risk of espionage and blackmail.”
In counterarguments, TikTok’s attorney argued that the government had not explored less severe measures to address national security concerns before opting for a ban. “If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government cannot restrict speech in order to protect us,” he contended. Additionally, he pointed out the inconsistency in targeting TikTok while ignoring other Chinese companies like Temu and Shein that also collect data on users.
This case may set a precedent for future regulations on similar Chinese apps operating in the U.S., according to expert Winston Ma from New York University. During the session, Justice Kavanaugh raised the question of whether the President could choose not to enforce the law, noting that Trump had previously attempted to ban TikTok during his presidency and was seeking a pause to explore a political resolution.
Kavanaugh also questioned the administration’s arguments regarding national security, suggesting that while concerns about data collection appeared robust, the fears surrounding content manipulation were less clear. Prelogar indicated that if the Court found data collection to be enough justification for upholding the law, it would not need to delve into the complexities of content manipulation.
As the discussion progressed, Prelogar attempted to alleviate concerns that TikTok might disappear permanently if shut down, suggesting that the platform could resume operations post-sale from ByteDance. Conversely, she highlighted previous troubling incidents, such as the case in which ByteDance employees accessed data of journalists investigating the company.
The justices also expressed skepticism over the implications of the argument that foreign ownership of platforms required stringent oversight. Gorsuch asked whether their stance could be interpreted as paternalistic, advocating for the idea that the best remedy for problematic content is counter-speech.
Chief Justice Roberts focused on the continuing risk posed by TikTok’s connections to the Chinese government with its intelligence operations, suggesting that if national security weighed more heavily than First Amendment rights, the Court could lean toward upholding the law.
As the arguments concluded, TikTok’s legal representation expressed concern that if there were no divestiture, the app would cease operations on January 19. This legal turmoil doesn’t just affect users; many small business owners, like Desiree Hill from Georgia, assert that their businesses heavily depend on TikTok for outreach and sales. Hill stated, “If I lose TikTok, I will lose a large part of my business.”
In a broader context, the Chinese government views the situation critically, perceiving it as an unnecessary attack on a successful local company. Consistently, observers believe Beijing would prefer the app’s shutdown to an uncooperative sale, underlining the geopolitical tensions influencing this crucial case.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to deliver a decision soon, either affirming or dismissing the law, as time is running out with the impending January 19 deadline looming closer.
