Newly proposed Congressional legislation would require the US to conduct security reviews for connected vehicles built by automakers from China and “other countries of concern.” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official who has championed the issue, introduced the bill on Wednesday.

If passed by Congress (a tall order these days), the Connected Vehicle National Security Review Act would establish a formal review process for connected autos from Chinese companies. It would also allow the Department of Commerce to limit or ban these cars and other vehicles before they reach US consumers.

“Today’s vehicles are more sophisticated than ever, carrying cameras, radars and other sophisticated sensors, plus the ability to process, transmit and store the data they gather from the United States,” said Slotkin. “If allowed into our markets, Chinese connected vehicles offer the Chinese government a treasure trove of valuable intelligence on the United States, including the potential to collect information on our military bases, critical infrastructure like the power grid and traffic systems, and even locate specific U.S leaders should they so choose.”

Rep. Elissa Slotkin

In a speech on the House floor earlier this month, Slotkin noted that Chinese EVs, often sold much cheaper than their US and European counterparts, could quickly gain a significant share of the American market. She cited how Chinese vehicles, first sold in Europe in 2019, now make up almost a quarter of its market. The representative also recently pushed Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on the security gap.

Alternatively (and perhaps ideally), legislators could pass a comprehensive data privacy law rather than dealing with these issues piecemeal.

The bill’s introduction follows the Biden Administration’s quadrupling of import tariffs on Chinese EVs. The White House’s new EV levies grew from 25 percent to 100 percent, following China’s EV exports rising 70 percent between 2022 and 2023.

In February, the White House also ordered the Department of Commerce to investigate the risks of connected vehicles from China and other adversaries. However, that action was conducted through an executive order and could be undone by future administrations. Slotkin’s legislation would close those loopholes if it makes it through Congress — rarely a safe bet in today’s highly obstructed and contentious political environment.

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that could provide at least some accountability for Ticketmaster and other live event vendors. NBC News reports the TICKET Act (not to be confused with the Senate’s separate bill with the same try-hard acronym) would mandate that ticket sellers list upfront the total cost of admission — including all fees — to buyers.

In addition to the full pricing breakdown, the bill would require sellers to indicate whether the tickets are currently in their possession. It would also ban deceptive websites from secondary vendors and force sellers to refund tickets to canceled events. The bill doesn’t appear to address price gouging or extravagant fees.

It now moves to the Senate, which is floating two separate event-reform bills: the other TICKET Act and a bipartisan Fans First Act. The latter was introduced in December to strengthen the 2016 BOTS Act that bars the use of bots to buy tickets, a practice that Taylor Swift fans (among others) can attest is still all too common.

Reforming the ticketing industry became a political point-scoring item in late 2022 after Ticketmaster’s Taylor Swift fiasco. The Live Nation-owned service, which has a stronghold on the industry, melted down as millions of fans battled “a staggering number” of bots. Ticketmaster said presale codes reached 1.5 million fans, but 14 million (including those pesky bots) tried to buy tickets.

Live Nation President and CFO Joe Berchtold testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2023, where he largely passed the buck to Congress to fix the mess. He suggested the government strengthen the BOTS Act, which one of the Senate’s bills would try to do. During the hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) needled the executive for dodging blame, accusing the company of pointing the finger at everyone but itself.

Representatives Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) issued a joint statement on Wednesday about the House’s TICKET Act. “This consensus legislation will end deceptive ticketing practices that frustrate consumers who simply want to enjoy a concert, show, or sporting event by restoring fairness and transparency to the ticket marketplace,” the group wrote. “After years of bipartisan work, we will now be able to enhance the customer experience of buying event tickets online. We look forward to continuing to work together to urge quick Senate passage so that we can send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law.”

Artists publicly supporting legislation to combat the ticketing industry’s failures include (among others) Billie Eilish, Lorde, Green Day, Cyndi Lauper, Jason Mraz and Dave Matthews. “We are joining together to say that the current system is broken: predatory resellers and secondary platforms engage in deceptive ticketing practices to inflate ticket prices and deprive fans of the chance to see their favorite artists at a fair price,” a joint letter from over 250 musicians reads.

Lawmakers from opposites sides of the aisle are looking to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, because it has "outlived its usefulness." House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and ranking member Frank Pallone, Jr. have released a bipartisan draft legislation introducing their proposed bill, which is seeking to render the provision ineffective after December 31, 2025. In the op-ed piece the lawmakers wrote for The Wall Street Journal, they admitted that Section 230 "helped shepherd the internet from the 'you've got mail' era into today's global nexus of communication and commerce." However, they said that big tech companies are now exploiting the same law to "shield them from any responsibility or accountability as their platforms inflict immense harm on Americans, especially children."

They added that the lawmakers who previously tried to address issues with Section 230 didn't succeed because tech companies refused any meaningful cooperation. Their bill would compel tech companies to work with government officials for 18 months to conjure and enact a new legal framework to replace the current version of Section 230. The new law will still allow for free speech and innovation, but it will also encourage the companies "to be good stewards of their platforms." Rodgers and Pallone said that their bill will give companies the choice between ensuring the internet is "a safe, healthy place for good" and losing their Section 230 protections altogether. 

Section 230 shields online publishers from liability when it comes to content posted by their users. Companies like Meta and Google have repeatedly used it in the past to get lawsuits dismissed, but it has come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Last year, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that would amend the section to require big platforms to pull down content within four days if they were deemed illegal by courts. Another bipartisan group also proposed a "No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act," which seeks to hold companies like OpenAI liable for harmful content, such as deepfake images or audio created to ruin somebody's reputation. 

TikTok is officially challenging the law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States. The company, which has long claimed that efforts to force a sale or ban of its app are unconstitutional, announced a lawsuit against the federal government.

In the lawsuit, TikTok claims that a divestiture of its business from ByteDance is “simply not possible,” and that the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” violates the First Amendment. “They claim that the Act is not a ban because it offers ByteDance a choice: divest TikTok’s U.S. business or be shut down,” the suit states. “But in reality, there is no choice. The ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.”

The filing of the lawsuit is the first beat in what’s expected to be a lengthy legal battle over the law, which was passed last month. Under the law, TikTok has up to a year to separate itself from Chinese parent company ByteDance or face a ban in US app stores. However, legal challenges from TikTok could significantly delay that process.

Developing…

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.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that could either see TikTok banned in the country or force its sale. A revised version of the bill, which previously passed the House in March but later stalled in Senate, was roped in with a foreign aid package this time around, likely meaning it will now be treated as a higher priority item. The bill originally gave TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, six months to sell the app or it would be banned from US app stores. Under the revised version, ByteDance would have up to a year to divest.

The bill passed with a vote of 360-58 in the House, according to AP. It’ll now move on to the Senate, which could vote on it as soon as days from now. President Joe Biden has previously said he would support the bill if Congress passes it.

The bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States appears to be much closer to becoming law. The legislation sailed through the House of Representatives last month, but faced an uncertain future in the Senate due to opposition from a few prominent lawmakers.

But momentum for the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” seems to once again be growing. The House is set to vote on a package of bills this weekend, which includes a slightly revised version of the TikTok bill. In the latest version of the bill, ByteDance would have up to 12 months to divest TikTok, instead of the six-month period stipulated in the original measure.

That change, as NBC News notes, was apparently key to winning over support from some skeptical members of the Senate, including Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. So with the House expected to pass the revised bill Saturday — it’s part of a package that also includes aid to Ukraine and Israel — its path forward is starting to look much more certain, with a Senate vote coming “as early as next week,” according to NBC. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it’s passed by Congress.

If passed into law, TikTok (and potentially other apps "controlled by a foreign adversary" and deemed to be a national security threat) would face a ban in US app stores if it declined to sell to a new owner. TikTok CEO Shou Chew has suggested the company would likely mount a legal challenge to the law.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” TikTok said in a statement.

One day after a bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States passed the House of Representatives, the company is doubling down on its strategy of urging users to call lawmakers. The app began pushing new in-app messages to users asking them to "tell your Senator how important TikTok is to you” and to “ask them to vote not on the TikTok ban.”

The new alerts are the second such message TikTok has pushed to users about the bill. Prior to the House vote, the company prompted users to call their representatives in the House. The step may have backfired as lawmakers accused the company of trying to “interfere” with the legislative process as Congressional offices were reportedly overwhelmed with calls, many of which came from somewhat confused teenagers.

The latest notifications are even more direct. “The House of Representatives just voted to ban TikTok, which impacts 170 million Americans just like you,” it says. “Now, if the Senate votes, the future of creativity and communities you love on TikTok could be shut down.” Like the previous alerts, users can choose to “call now,” and the app will find phone numbers if a zip code is provided.

Screenshot via TikTok

TikTok didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But the message underscores just how big a threat the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is to the company. If passed, TikTok would have about six months to sell itself or face a ban in the US. Though there have been several previous attempts to ban the app or force a sale, no measure has received as much bipartisan support so quickly. If passed by the Senate, President Joe Biden has said he would sign it into law.

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has also appealed directly to users, telling them to “protect your constitutional rights” and promising that the company would “do all we can including exercising our legal rights to protect this amazing platform.”

Hours after the House passed a bill that could ban TikTok in the United States, Shou Chew, the company’s CEO urged users to “protect your constitutional rights.” Chew also implied that TikTok would mount a legal challenge if the bill is passed into law.

“We will not stop fighting and advocating for you,” Chew said in a video posted to X. “We will continue to do all we can including exercising our legal rights to protect this amazing platform that we have built with you.” He also asked TikTok users in the US to share their stories with friends, families, and senators. “This legislation, if passed into law, will lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States,” Chew said. “Even the bill’s sponsors admit that’s their goal.”

The bill, known as the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” passed the House on Wednesday with bipartisan support just days after it was introduced. Should the bill pass into law, it would force TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, a Chinese corporation, to sell TikTok to a US company within six months, or be banned from US app stores and web hosting services. TikTok has challenged state-level bans in the past. Last year, TikTok sued Montana, which banned the app in the state. A federal judge temporarily blocked that ban in November before it went into effect.

Last week, TikTok sent push notifications to the app’s more than 170 million users in the US urging them to call their representatives about the potential ban. “Speak up now — before your government strips 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression,” the notification said. The wave of notifications reportedly led to House staffers being inundated with calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is. Lawmakers criticized the company they perceived as trying to “interfere” with the legislative process.

In his appeal, Chew said that banning TikTok would give “more power to a handful of other social media companies.” Former President Donald Trump, who once tried to force ByteDance to sell TikTok in the US, recently expressed a similar sentiment, claiming that banning TikTok would strengthen Meta whose platform, Reels, competes with TikTok directly. Chew also added that taking TikTok away would also hurt hundreds of thousands of American jobs, creators, and small businesses.

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...