Emily Baker White

Dec 16, 2024 | forbes.com | Emily Baker-White |Emily Baker White

This story was updated to reflect new information from the Jan. 10 Supreme arguments. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the divest-or-ban bill that could take TikTok offline just nine days from today, on January 19. A key discussion point during oral argument was whether President-elect Donald Trump would be able to “save” TikTok, as he has promised to do, should the law go into effect. The law doesn’t really allow Trump to keep this promise.

Dec 16, 2024 | forbes.com | Emily Baker-White |Emily Baker White

This story was updated to reflect new information from the Supreme Court’s Jan. 17 ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold the TikTok divest-or-ban bill, which requires Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores on Sunday, a day before President-elect Trump is inaugurated. Once Trump is in office, he’s promised to “save” TikTok. But the law doesn’t really allow him to keep this promise.

Dec 11, 2024 | forbes.com | Emily Baker-White |Emily Baker White

This story was updated to reflect new information from the Jan. 10 Supreme arguments. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to allow a law that would ban TikTok on January 19 to go into effect. The justices seemed skeptical of TikTok’s arguments, raising the chances that the platform will be subject to at least a temporary ban, beginning next Sunday.

Dec 10, 2024 | forbes.com | Emily Baker-White |Emily Baker White

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared likely to let the TikTok ban-or-divest law go into effect on January 19, providing new urgency to a problem raised by the law: If Oracle has to stop hosting TikTok’s sensitive U.S. user data to comply with the law, it will have to give all that sensitive data back to ByteDance, potentially making it more easily accessible by the Chinese government.

Dec 9, 2024 | forbes.com | Emily Baker-White |Emily Baker White

On Monday morning, TikTok asked a powerful appeals court to temporarily stop a law that could ban the app in the U.S. as soon as January 19. Among the company’s rationales for the delay was the idea that the court should give the Trump Administration time to decide what it thinks about the law before it goes into effect. That’s a bad argument. Courts don’t stop laws from going into effect just because a future president might not like them.