TikTok Approaches US Court Of Appeals Disputing Claims Of Data Misuse

TikTok Approaches US Court Of Appeals Disputing Claims Of Data Misuse

The lawmakers had observed that China could spy on Americans through the social media app

TikTok has informed a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Department of Justice (DoJ) has misstated its ties to China, urging the court to overturn a law requiring China-based ByteDance to sell the social media app's US assets or face a ban.

While TikTok stated that the DoJ made factual errors in the case, the DoJ had said that the app posed a national security risk by allowing the Chinese government to collect the data of Americans and covertly manipulate the content.

However, TikTok maintained it was undisputed that the app's content recommendation engine and user data were stored in the US on cloud servers operated by Oracle. The content moderation decisions affecting the users were made in the US.

The law prohibits app stores like Apple, and Alphabet's Google, from offering TikTok, and bars internet hosting services from supporting TikTok, unless it is divested by ByteDance.

Just weeks after it was introduced, US lawmakers observed that China could access data of Americans or spy on them with the app and took measures.

Signed by President Joe Biden in April, the law gives ByteDance until 19 January to sell TikTok or face a ban. However, the White House added that it wanted to see Chinese-based ownership ends on national security grounds but not a ban on TikTok.

The court proceedings will be held on 16 September, putting the issue of the app's fate into the November presidential election. The Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who joined TikTok, stated he would never support a ban.

Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, leaned into TikTok as part of her campaign strategy.

TikTok stated that the law would strip the company of its free-speech rights. It argued against the DoJ’s claim that the short video app's content curation decisions were "the speech of a foreigner" and not protected by the US Constitution.