TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance filed a complaint against the United States on Tuesday, saying that the law which poses an ultimatum to the popular video platform, and risks banning it from the country next year, is “unconstitutional”, d ‘after the court document.
• Read also: The specter of TikTok being banned in the United States haunts creators and SMEs
• Read also: TikTok’s parent company does not intend to sell the application despite the American ultimatum
Washington adopted a text at the end of April which obliges ByteDance to sell TikTok within twelve months, otherwise the application used by 170 million Americans would be banned.
The social network and many personalities and NGOs consider that this law violates the freedom of expression of its users, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.
“For the first time in history, Congress has passed a law that permanently bans one speech platform nationwide and prohibits every American from participating in an online community. “one with more than a billion people worldwide,” the company’s lawyers say in the complaint filed in federal court in Washington.
After the vote by elected officials and the promulgation by the White House, TikTok warned that it would use all possible legal avenues against the law called “Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” (“protecting Americans from controlled applications by foreign adversaries”).
The promoters of this text claim suspicion of manipulation and spying on American users by Chinese authorities via TikTok.
By law, the platform has 270 days to find new non-Chinese investors, otherwise it will be banned in the United States. The White House may grant an additional 90 days.
The legal battle could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In 2020, TikTok successfully blocked a similar executive order from former President Donald Trump. She then filed an appeal and a judge temporarily suspended the decree, finding that the reasons given for the ban were exaggerated and freedom of expression threatened.
The new law aims to circumvent the difficulties previously encountered. Experts believe that the Supreme Court could be sensitive to national security arguments put forward by elected officials, without certainty.
