ByteDance alleged that the US government would prefer shut down than find a ‘effective solution’ to protect customers.
Biden’s April legislation required that ByteDance sell TikTok’s US assets by January 19, or face a ban on the app.
TikTok and ByteDance petitioned a US court in 2024 to overturn a restriction that would have prohibited the popular short video app from being used on January 19.
The two firms said on Thursday that the US government had evaded meaningful settlement conversations since 2022.
Since President Joe Biden signed legislation in April, ByteDance has until January to sell TikTok’s US assets or face a ban on the app, which is used by 170 million Americans. According to ByteDance, divestiture is “not possible technologically, commercially, or legally”.
According to ByteDance, extensive negotiations with the US government ended suddenly in August 2022. The company posted a redacted version of a 100-page draft national security agreement to safeguard US TikTok user data, claiming it spent more than $2 billion on it.
According to the draft agreement, the US requested that TikTok’s source code be shifted outside of China and granted the government a “kill switch” to suspend the company if it broke the agreement.
In an April 1 email made public on Thursday, TikTok lawyers wrote to the Justice Department, “This administration has determined that it prefers to try to shut down TikTok in the United States and eliminate a platform of speech for 170 million Americans, rather than continue to work on a practical, feasible, and effective solution to protect US users through an enforceable agreement with
On September 16, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments in the TikTok, ByteDance, and user lawsuits. The case may have an impact on how US authorities use their new authority to clamp down on foreign-owned apps, as well as the future of TikTok in the United States.
ByteDance and TikTok petitioned the court to overturn the rule, citing its “radical departure from this country’s tradition of championing an open Internet, and sets a dangerous precedent allowing the political branches to target a disfavored speech platform and force it to sell or be shut down.”
