TIKTOK’S WILD RIDE
In a rare unanimous decision, on January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that bans TikTok in the United States on national security grounds so long as it has its current ownership structure. TikTok chose to make the app go dark in the United States before the law’s deadline, which spurred a panic among users (with many protesting on the belief that their First Amendment rights were being violated), though the app was back online within fourteen hours. The entire debacle had some speculating that the entire thing was a PR stunt to garner favor with Donald Trump, who issued an executive order on his first day in office declaring a 75-day extension of the requirement to shutter the app in the United States. TikTok sent push notifications to all U.S. users specifically praising the new president by name—a very unusual move. However, it isn’t entirely clear to what extent Trump’s executive order can do what it says.
With more than 170 million users in the United States—including many content creators who rely on the platform for the bulk of their income—TikTok’s uncertain future is a source of significant anxiety. Lawmakers have long decried TikTok as a major national security risk, claiming that its parent company, ByteDance, is beholden to the Chinese government and that the app is essentially spyware that could compromise the data of Americans for the benefit of the Chinese. The justices who endorsed the Court’s per curiam opinion debated whether the law should undergo a First Amendment review, given that it does not explicitly regulate the content posted by the app’s users. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the law primarily targets TikTok and ByteDance through its divestiture requirement.
With a new administration in place, this is a very fluid situation. Despite the 75-day reprieve, the law is still in place and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.
U.S. TIKTOK USERS FLOCK TO XIAOHONGSHU APP
Oh, the irony. Ahead of the TikTok ban deadline, more than 3 million U.S. users moved to China’s Xiaohongshu app, which is a sort of cross between Pinterest and Instagram that boasts more than 300 million users. The app, which translates to “Little Red Book” in English, is fully Beijing-based and subject to strict censorship by the Chinese government. Anything deemed critical of the government or focused on potentially controversial social topics is grounds for an immediate account suspension. Additionally, Western users flocking to Xiaohongshu presents a substantial data security threat, channeling vast amounts of personal information into a system that prioritizes state control that could potentially be exploited. While the full extent of data usage remains uncertain, similar Chinese apps like WeChat have been documented collecting international user data to enhance censorship capabilities. As a result, millions of new users may now be unknowingly contributing to the Chinese government’s data collection efforts. If the TikTok situation in the United States is resolved, it’s a near-certainty that these new Xiaohongshu users will migrate back to TikTok, but in the meantime, massive amounts of data may have been harvested. If the Supreme Court’s ruling stands, it’s possible that Xiaohongshu will also be banned in the United States.
TENNESSEE’S AGE-GATING LAW REMAINS IN EFFECT DURING APPEAL
In an opinion rife with editorial, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will allow enforcement of Tennessee’s age verification law for online pornography while the court considers the law’s overarching constitutional implications. The law, known as the “Protect Tennessee Minors Act,” was to take effect on January 1, but the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted a motion by Free Speech Coalition, Inc. to preliminarily stop Tennessee from enforcing the new law. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti immediately appealed the ruling and successfully argued to allow enforcement while the Gordian knot of age-gating is (presumably) untangled by the court. Currently, nineteen states have passed laws requiring adult website visitors to verify their age. Implementation of these laws is sure to keep thousands of lawyers and jurists busy throughout 2025 as the cases wend their way through the courts.
PRIVACY SUIT AGAINST GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE MOVES FORWARD
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that the plaintiffs in a class action initially filed in 2019 against Google and YouTube can proceed with their claims; have sufficiently alleged that the companies collected data on children without parental consent, in violation of state privacy laws; and have met the standard of “intrusion on seclusion.” Though Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen dismissed the case last July, she gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, which they have done successfully. The court did, however, throw out claims of unjust enrichment. This case has been a nearly six-year odyssey of appeals, rulings, and recusals—and it’s not over yet.
YOUTUBERS FIND A UNIQUE NEW REVENUE STREAM
Creating videos is difficult and tedious. For every six seconds of brilliance, there are hundreds of hours of footage left on the cutting room floor. Major AI firms are now offering to purchase this dead footage from content creators to use as training tools for their AI bots. Though prices vary based on image quality, format, and uniqueness, creators can fetch as much as $4 per minute. For prolific videographers, this can easily equate to thousands of dollars monthly. It also provides a unique resource to the AI companies. Content that has never circulated on the internet can be invaluable for AI training, which until now has overwhelmingly relied on webscraping to train the bots.
ROBOT LAWYERS!
In a bizarre sign of the times, the Colorado Court of Appeals has issued a warning to attorneys that they may be sanctioned for misuse of generative AI. The hubbub centered around a garden-variety landlord/tenant dispute, but became much more interesting when the plaintiff, Alim Al-Hamim, chose to represent himself (what’s the old adage about a man who is his own lawyer?). Fortunately for Al‑Hamim’s pro se dream, generative AI was there to hold his hand. Unfortunately for everyone else, the AI program used began to “hallucinate,” like Homer Simpson at a chili-eating contest, which resulted in Al‑Hamim citing eight nonexistent cases in his opening brief. Though the court showed some mercy and chose not to directly sanction Al-Hamim after he apologized, it did issue a warning to anyone considering relying on generative AI in court, writing: “[L]awyers and self-represented parties who appear in this court . . . we will not look kindly on similar infractions in the future.” So if you were considering trying out a little bit of robo-lawyering, the Centennial State is probably not the best place to start.
[View source.]
