A bill that could ban TikTok is now all but certain to become law. The Senate approved a measure that requires ByteDance to sell TikTok or face a ban, in a vote of 79 - 18. The “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” will next head to President Joe Biden, who has said he would sign the bill into law.

While it’s far from the first effort to force a ban or divestment of the social media app, the bill managed to draw far more support than previous attempts. The bill was introduced in March and sailed through the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan agreement. A slightly revised version was approved as part of a package of foreign aid legislation on Saturday.

Under the updated terms, TikTok would have up to 12 months to divest from parent company ByteDance or face a ban in US app stores and web hosting services. The company has called the bill unconstitutional and indicated it would mount a legal challenge to such a law, which could further delay an eventual sale or ban.

The company didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

TikTok has long been viewed with suspicion by lawmakers and the intelligence community. Ahead of votes in the House and Senate, members of Congress were briefed by intelligence officials on the alleged national security threat posed by the app. The exact nature of those concerns is still unclear, though some members of Congress have asked for details from the briefings to be declassified.

At the same time, some lawmakers have expressed skepticism, saying that the alleged threat posed by TikTok is largely hypothetical. Free speech and digital rights groups also oppose the bill, noting that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way of protecting Americans’ personal data. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has made a similar argument, telling Congress last year that a forced sale wouldn’t resolve data concerns about the app.

But TikTok’s recent efforts to muster opposition to the bill may have backfired. Lawmakers rebuked the company for sending in-app notifications to users about the bill after the alerts resulted in a flood of calls to Congressional offices. And the app may have drawn even more suspicion when Politico reported last week that Chinese diplomats were lobbying Congressional staffers to oppose the bill. Officials in China have condemned the measure. A Chinese law, passed in 2020, could prevent ByteDance from including TikTok’s recommendation algorithm in a sale of the app.

A bill that could force a sale or outright ban on TikTok passed the House just days after it was first introduced. The House of Representatives approved the measure Wednesday, in a vote of 352 - 65, in a rare showing of bipartisan support. It now goes to the Senate.

If passed into law, the legislation would give parent company ByteDance a six-month window to sell TikTok or face a ban from US app stores and web hosting services. While the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is far from the first effort to force a ban or sale of TikTok, it’s been able to draw more support far more quickly than previous bills.

The measure cleared its first procedural vote in the House last week, just two days after it was introduced. The bill will now move onto the Senate, where its future is less certain. Senator Rand Paul has said he would block the bill, while other lawmakers have also been hesitant to publicly back the bill.

TikTok has called the bill unconstitutional, saying it would “strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression” and hurt creators and businesses that rely on the service. Last week, the company sent a wave of push notifications to users, urging them to ask their representatives to oppose the bill. Congressional staffers reported that offices were overwhelmed with calls, many of which came from confused teenagers. Lawmakers later accused the company of trying to “interfere” with the legislative process.

Free speech and digital rights groups also oppose the bill, with many noting that comprehensive privacy laws would be more effective at protecting Americans’ user data rather than a measure that primarily targets one app. Former President Donald Trump, who once also tried to force ByteDance to sell TikTok, has also said he is against the bill, claiming it would strengthen Meta.

In a letter to lawmakers, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Fight for the Future and the Center for Democracy and Technology argued that the bill would “set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms” and would likely “invite copycat measures by other countries … with significant consequences for free expression globally.”

If the bill were to muster enough votes to pass the Senate, President Joe Biden says he would sign the bill into law. His administration has previously pressured ByteDance to sell TikTok. Officials maintain the app poses a national security risk due to its ties to ByteDance, a Chinese company. TikTok has repeatedly refuted these claims.

If the law was passed, the company would likely mount a legal challenge like it did in Montana, which passed a statewide ban last year. A federal judge temporarily blocked the ban in November before it could go into effect.

Developing...

One day after Montana Governor signed the first statewide ban on TikTok into law, the measure is already facing a legal challenge. Five TikTok creators are suing in an effort to block the ban from taking effect.

In court filings, lawyers representing the TikTok creators say the ban is unconstitutional and that it violates their First Amendment rights. They also take issue with Montana’s supposed national security justification for the ban. 

“Montana has no authority to enact laws advancing what it believes should be the United States’ foreign policy or its national security interests, nor may Montana ban an entire forum for communication based on its perceptions that some speech shared through that forum, though protected by the First Amendment, is dangerous,” the suit states. “Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes.”

In an interview on Fox News, Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, said that legal challenges to the ban were expected. “There are some important issues here that I do think we probably need the federal courts to step in and answer for us here,” he said. “And that was part of our calculus in bringing this.”

The lawsuit is among the first legal challenges to the law, and will likely be closely watched as federal officials consider a nationwide ban on the app. Right now, the Montana ban is set to take effect January 1, 2024, though lawsuits challenging it could delay that timeline. TikTok itself hasn’t commented on whether it’s planning to bring its own litigation in Montana, but said in a statement following the bill’s signing that it planned “to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.”

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has issued two rulings in favor of tech companies that will continue to shield them from liability for what users post on their platforms. In the first case, the justices unanimously agreed that Twitter will not have to contend with claims that it aided and abetted terrorism over tweets that terrorist group ISIS posted.

SCOTUS reversed a lower court decision that allowed a lawsuit against Twitter to proceed after another judge initially dismissed it. The lawsuit was filed by US relatives of Nawras Alassaf, a man who was killed in a 2017 Istanbul attack that was claimed by ISIS. The justices determined that hosting general terrorist speech doesn't create indirect legal responsibility for specific terrorist attacks, as CNN reports. That is likely to make it more difficult for victims of terrorist attacks or their relatives to make a similar case against online platforms in the future.

"To be sure, it might be that bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants’ for illegal — and sometimes terrible — ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email or the internet generally," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion. "We conclude that plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.”

The justices also dismissed the case of Gonzalez v. Google, which accused the company of violating US anti-terrorism laws. As such, they left intact a lower court decision to throw out a suit against YouTube brought by the family members of a victim of the 2015 terror attack in Paris. They argued that Section 230 protections should not apply to Google and YouTube in this case, as the latter's algorithms surfaced ISIS videos in recommendations.

"We decline to address the application of Section 230 to a complaint that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Instead, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for Ninth Circuit to consider plaintiffs’ complaint in light of our decision in Twitter.”

Section 230 refers to a clause in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. In essence, it protects online platforms from being liable for what their users post as well as the ability of companies to moderate third-party material. 

The clause has faced opposition from both sides of the aisle over the years, with both Democrats and Republicans seeking to reform or scrap it. President Joe Biden claimed during his campaign that he would see Section 230 "revoked, immediately" if he were elected, but that obviously hasn't come to pass. In relation to Gonzalez vs. Google, Biden's administration argued that Section 230 protections don't extend to Google's algorithms, as the clause does not "bar claims based on YouTube’s alleged targeted recommendations of ISIS content."

Engadget has contacted Google for comment. Twitter does not have a communications team that can be reached for comment.

Digital rights groups are among those who have welcomed the SCOTUS rulings. “We are pleased that the Court did not address or weaken Section 230, which remains an essential part of the architecture of the modern internet and will continue to enable user access to online platforms," Electronic Frontier Foundation civil liberties director David Greene said in a statement to Engadget. "We also are pleased that the Court found that an online service cannot be liable for terrorist attacks merely because their services are generally used by terrorist organizations the same way they are used by millions of organizations around the globe.”

“With this decision, free speech online lives to fight another day,” Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project, said. “Twitter and other apps are home to an immense amount of protected speech, and it would be devastating if those platforms resorted to censorship to avoid a deluge of lawsuits over their users’ posts. Today’s decisions should be commended for recognizing that the rules we apply to the internet should foster free expression, not suppress it.”

The Supreme Court will soon hear two cases that could decide whether or not government figures can block their critics on social networks. The court has agreed to tackle appeals from California and Michigan residents who claim officials violated First Amendment free speech rights by blocking them on social media in response to critical commentary.

In California, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier believe Poway Unified School District members Michelle O'Connor-Ratcliff and TJ Zane unfairly blocked them on Facebook and Twitter for writing hundreds of critical comments on talking points like school budgets and race. Michigan's Kevin Lindke, meanwhile, says City Manager James Freed violated his rights by blocking him on Facebook over criticism regarding the pandemic.

The cases have had different outcomes so far. A federal judge sided with the Garniers in 2021, and an appeals court upheld the decision noting that O'Connor-Ratcliff and Zane both used their social accounts in an official role. However, the federal judge in the other case ruled for Freed in 2021, who won an appeal in 2022. Freed wasn't acting as City Manager when he blocked Lindke, the judges found.

Cases like this took the spotlight in 2019, when then-President Trump and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both faced accusations they violated free speech rights by banning critics. To date, courts have typically ruled based on whether or not officials are using their accounts for business. Even a personal account used for official activity amounts to a public space where criticism must be allowed, a federal appeals court found when hearing Trump's case. These issues haven't reached the Supreme Court until now. The legal body's decisions could settle the question and force officials to allow critics so long as the posts don't amount to harassment or threats. 

The controversial EARN IT Act, first introduced in 2020, is returning to Congress after failing twice to land on the president’s desk. The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, (EARN IT) Act is intended to minimize the proliferation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) throughout the web, but detractors say it goes too far and risks further eroding online privacy protections.

Here's how it would work, according to the language of the bill's reintroduction last year. Upon passing, EARN IT would create a national commission composed of politically-appointed law enforcement specialists. This body would be tasked with making a list of best practices to ostensibly curb the digital distribution of CSAM. If online service providers do not abide by these best practices, they would potentially lose blanket immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to all kinds of legal hurdles — including civil lawsuits and criminal charges.

Detractors say EARN IT places a whole lot of power to regulate the internet in the hands of the commission the bill would create as well as state legislatures. Additionally, language in last year's bill suggests that these guidelines would likely extend to encrypted information, so if an encrypted transmission runs afoul of any guidelines, the platform is on the hook. This will force providers to monitor encrypted communications, which goes against the whole point of encryption in the first place. Additionally, end-to-end encryption is designed so that not even the platform can read the contents. In other words, providers might not be able to offer those protections. 

“This was a dangerous bill two years ago, and because it’s doubled down on its anti-encryption stance, it’s even more dangerous now,” The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School wrote in a blog post last year, a stance also mirrored by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The American Civil Liberties Union, pushing back on a prior version of the bill, said that it "threatens our online speech and privacy rights in ways that will disproportionately harm LGBTQ people, sex workers and others who use the internet to privately communicate and share information and resources."

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) has come out in defense of the bill, saying that it will “incentivize technology companies to proactively search for and remove” CSAM materials. “Tech companies have the technology to detect, remove, and stop the distribution of child sexual abuse material. However, there is no incentive to do so because they are subject to no consequences for their inaction,” wrote Erin Earp, RAINN’s interim vice president for public policy.

The bipartisan Senate bills have consistently been introduced by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, and their companion bills in the House likewise have been sponsored by Republican Representative Ann Wagner and Democrat Representative Sylvia Garcia. The full text of H.R.2732 is not publicly available yet, so it's unclear if anything has changed since last year's attempt, though when reintroduced last year it was more of the same. (We've reached out to the offices of Reps. Wagner and Garcia for a copy of the bill's text.) A member of Senator Graham's office confirmed to Engadget that the companion bill will be introduced within the next week. It also remains to be seen if and when this will come up for a vote. Both prior versions of EARN IT died in committee before ever coming to a vote.

Amazon has one less legal challenge to worry about. An appeals court today dismissed a lawsuit by New York State Attorney General Letitia James against the company for its coronavirus safety protocols and alleged retaliation against workers, reportedReuters. In its ruling, the court said that since federal labor law preempts state labor law, National Labor Relations Board “should serve as the forum” for the dispute. It also pointed to a separate NLRB case over fired employee Gerald Bryson and said it contained “essentially the same” allegations of retaliation, and argued there was a risk of “interference” over the NLRB’s jurisdiction.

The lawsuit — filed last year — accused Amazon of subjecting workers from two Staten Island facilities to unsafe conditions during the pandemic. It also alleged that Amazon retaliated against former employees Christian Smalls and Derrick Palmer — now of the Amazon Labor Union — by firing them after they protested the company’s working conditions. Just a few days earlier, Amazon filed its own lawsuit against the New York State attorney general’s office in an effort to stop the investigation.

Last month, it appeared that luck was on the NY State attorney general’s side when a federal judge denied Amazon’s bid to transfer the lawsuit. But the New York Court of Appeals today not only reversed this decision, it dismissed claims in the state attorney general’s lawsuit that Amazon violated COVID-19 health and safety protocols. The appeals court stated that since New York State’s coronavirus workplace protocols have since been lifted, the lawsuit's efforts to get Amazon to comply with them were “moot.”

“Throughout the pandemic, Amazon has failed to provide a safe working environment for New Yorkers, putting their health and safety at risk. As our office reviews the decision and our options moving forward, Attorney General James remains committed to protecting Amazon workers, and all workers, from unfair treatment,” wrote Morgan Rubin, a spokesperson for the attorney general, in a statement to Engadget.

Engadget has reached out to Amazon for comment on the lawsuit and will update if we hear back. 

San Francisco federal district court Judge James Donato has tossed the lawsuit Donald Trump filed against Twitter last year in a bid to get his account back. The social network permanently suspended the former president's account after his supporters stormed the Capitol in January 2021. In the company's announcement, Twitter cited two of his tweets in particular that it believes were "highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the US Capitol" on January 6th last year.

Trump filed a lawsuit in October, seeking a preliminary injunction on the ban and arguing that it violates his First Amendment rights. Donato disagreed and noted in his ruling that Twitter is a private company. "The First Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech," he explained, "and not to alleged abridgements by private companies." The judge also rejected the notion that the social network had acted as a government entity after being pressured by Trump's opponents and had thereby violated the First Amendment when it banned the former President. 

In his lawsuit, Trump asked the judge to rule the federal Communications Decency Act, which states that online service providers such as Twitter can't be held liable for content posted by users, as unconstitutional. The judge shot down that claim, as well, and ruled that the former President didn't have legal standing to challenge Section 230 of CDA. Trump is a known critic of Section 230 and proposed to limit the protections social media platforms enjoy under it during his term.

The former President was an avid Twitter user before his suspension and formed his own social network called Truth Social after he was banned. Just recently, he told CNBC that he won't be going back to Twitter even if Elon Musk reverses his suspension and will stay on Truth Social instead. According to a recent report by the Daily Beast, Truth Social has 513,000 daily active users compared to Twitter's 217 million.