In the preliminary hearing, TikTok Inc. challenged the state of Montana’s ban on the popular social media app, with the state arguing that the law is needed to protect the privacy of citizens because the company has ties to a hostile foreign power.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy heard arguments on Oct. 12 over the implementation of Senate Bill 419, which was passed by the state legislature and signed into law earlier this year, would ban TikTok from being used anywhere the state has criminal jurisdiction, is slated to go into effect in January of 2024. TikTok and several creators are suing the state, citing both a First Amendment violation and the claim that they will suffer loss if the app is banned.
During the hearing, the plaintiff’s legal team, representing TikTok Inc., raised concerns about the ban’s impact on the First Amendment. They questioned whether the state has the authority to regulate internet content, citing the case of Jews for Jesus from Los Angeles. The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that there is no justifiable interest that could warrant a complete ban on TikTok.
TikTok’s attorneys also pointed out that users might not have a suitable alternative platform to express their views, especially since TikTok has its own speech and editing rights on the platform. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that the ban conflicted with both federal statutory schemes and violated federal law.
In response, Montana’s Solicitor General, Christian Corrigan, defended the ban by emphasizing data privacy and the state’s obligation to protect consumers. Mr. Corrigan argued that the ban was tailored to address the specific concerns related to TikTok’s connection to a “hostile foreign power.” He cited TikTok’s unique threat to consumer protection in Montana.
In a back-and-forth exchange, Judge Molloy questioned the state’s arguments and the implications of the law on Montana’s criminal jurisdiction and its impact on indigenous people living on reservations. Mr. Corrigan argued that the law would not apply on reservations and would be enforced through IP addresses.
The judge sought clarification on the law’s scope, and the plaintiff’s attorney suggested that the application might be subject to an undue burden on those who make a significant portion of their income through the app.
After extensive arguments, the case was submitted for a decision, with Judge Molloy promising to reach a resolution as quickly as possible. Montana’s ban on TikTok remains unique, and this preliminary hearing marks the first legal test of its kind. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of social media platforms and their impact on First Amendment rights.
TikTok, which is owned by a Beijing-based corporation, ByteDance, must comply with Chinese law, which includes regulations mandating the disclosure of user data to the Chinese government.
The state of Utah accused the corporation of contributing to a mental health crisis by encouraging a “addictive and unhealthy” online environment for its youngest users.
The lawsuit, filed in a Salt Lake City court, claims the Chinese-owned company exploits children by encouraging them to “check and watch the app compulsively” while protecting them from the potentially detrimental effects of excessive app use on their mental health, physical development, and other areas of their lives.
“TikTok intentionally designed and deployed an addictive product to bring itself financial gain by monetizing the attention of young users,” the state wrote in the complaint.
“Like a slot machine, users ’swipe down' on the app to load more videos continuously, each new video requiring only a small investment of their time, and the user is excited for each new video by the possibility that it might be incredibly rewarding,” it explained. “This pattern keeps users engaged, constantly anticipating that dopamine rush.”
