When will we know if TikTok is banned in US?

The US Supreme Court will this week hear TikTok's last-gasp attempt to quash a law that would essentially ban it in America on January 19. Social media experts say the stakes could not be higher.

“For TikTok, the stakes are existential, and for the broader social media landscape, this is a rare shake-up that could redistribute billions of dollars of ad revenue and user attention,” said Matt Navarra, a social media consultant and analyst.

While it is unclear when the Supreme Court will make a final decision on the potential ban, Mr Navarra said a few technology companies are already preparing to fill any TikTok vacuum.

Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts and Snapchat Spotlight are all competing to capture TikTok’s user base, he said. He said that while Instagram seemed most likely to benefit from a TikTok ban, YouTube's Google ownership could also help it to make inroads with TikTok users.

“YouTube has the trust factor that comes with Google’s infrastructure which is something brands value in uncertain times,” Mr Navarra said, adding that Google's experience with advertisements gives it an advantage for those seeking to replicate TikTok's monetisation success for content creators.

Mr Navarra will soon be speaking to some of the world's most influential content creators at Dubai's 1 Billion Followers Summit, just as the US Supreme Court is debating the arguments made by TikTok and the US Justice Department.

“It’s a watershed moment for social media,” he said, noting how social content is now the formidable force for advertisers, media organisations and consumers. “TikTok’s potential ban does throw the entire landscape into question because it’s not just about that single app, it’s about data privacy, national security and the future of online expression so the stakes really couldn’t bet be higher.”

ByteDance v the US Justice Department

Legislators and technology experts have long argued that TikTok, which is owned and operated by China-based ByteDance, leaves user data vulnerable to the whims of Beijing because ByteDance is ultimately subject to the rules and regulations of the Chinese Communist Party.

ByteDance and its chief executive, Shou Zi Chew, have repeatedly denied those claims, and the app has continued to grow an estimated user base of 170 million active monthly users.

Amid that rise, the US Congress, in a rare bipartisan move, passed legislation requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok from its portfolio by January 19, or risk the platform being removed from US app stores. President Joe Biden signed the law.

During his first term in the White House, Donald Trump also raised the alarm about US data privacy and national security with regard to TikTok.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, however, Mr Trump joined TikTok and quickly amassed millions of followers, eventually prompting to him indicate that he supported the platform, and that he had a “soft spot” for it.

In Supreme Court filing, Mr Trump's team said “President Trump alone possesses the consummate deal-making expertise, the electoral mandate and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government", essentially urging the Supreme Court to postpone the January 19 ban deadline.

TikTok claims that its First Amendment free speech rights are being breached by the law, but a US circuit court disagreed, pointing to a similar case from 1987, Palestine Information Office v Shultz, that gave legislators legal precedent to ban TikTok.

The failure to persuade the US circuit court ultimately prompted ByteDance to appeal to the highest court in the US. This time, TikTok was joined by First Amendment professors and libertarian-leaning technology organisations with supportive legal filings hoping to sway the Supreme Court.

“The appellate court failed to provide a coherent analysis of the scope and scale of the alleged national security risks and whether those risks justify the act’s unprecedented curbs on freedom of expression and internet access,” wrote Milton Mueller, a senior professor at Georgia Tech, in support of TikTok.

Meanwhile, in its most recent filing, the Justice Department did not mince words in defending a ban.

“No one disputes that the People's Republic of China seeks to undermine US interests by amassing sensitive data about Americans and engaging in covert and malign influence operations,” read the brief filed by the department. “And in light of those realities, no one can seriously dispute that the PRC's control of TikTok through ByteDance represents a grave threat to national security.”

Reality of legal arguments collide with TikTok user perception

While TikTok has thus far been unsuccessful in US courts, Mr Navarra said that in the court of global public perception, the social platform is largely prevailing.

“Lawmakers are framing this as a national security issue but for users it feels like the government is policing the internet in a way that sets dangerous precedent,” he said. “It’s a complex issue. On one hand there’s legitimate security concerns about data security and Chinese government influence … I think on the other hand, the ban sets a dangerous precedent for online censorship. It’s a slippery slope.”

If the TikTok ban is upheld, the US would follow other countries, including India, who prohibited the app based on national security concerns. India's ban was hardly cataclysmic for content creators, who piled on to Instagram and YouTube.

Mr Navarra, however, said that if the US ban is upheld, the real winner would not necessarily be the platform that simply copies its features, but rather the company that is able to replicate TikTok's algorithm.

“TikTok isn’t just winning because of short videos,” he said. “It’s winning because its algorithm makes the internet like a treasure hunt that you can’t stop playing. Other platforms have tried to imitate it and they’re 80 to 90 per cent there.

Mr Navarra said that Meta, YouTube and even Snapchat methodically keep making progress during TikTok's laborious legal battle.