Apple faces billions in liability from Trump's TikTok ban delay

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in iOS edited March 25

Three senators have warned President Donald Trump that his handling of the TikTok ban puts Apple and other tech companies at risk of liability, potentially costing firms hundreds of billions of dollars.

Smartphone displaying TikTok logo resting on green grass.
TikTok on an iPhone



The ban on TikTok has largely been ignored by the current U.S. Administration, after President Trump ordered for the ban to be extended until April 5. With that delayed deadline looming, lawmakers are concerned about what could happen next and how it could impact other companies.

In a letter to the President on Monday, Senators Edward Markey (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) insist that there could be considerable costs associated with the way that the delay was instigated.

Rather than triggering a 90-day extension of the deadline as detailed in the original law to ban TikTok if it's not divested, Trump instead issued an executive order. One instructing the Department of Justice not to enforce the law for 75 days.

That extension allowed Apple to return the app to the App Store, and Google to do the same with the Google Play Store.

While the order stops TikTok and connected companies from being prosecuted for the period, it's not the same as legalizing the app. Making TikTok available is still against the law, it's just the Justice Department won't act on it.

A very expensive risk



Deeming this workaround "unlawful," the letter adds that it "raised serious questions about TikTok's future, as the law imposes liability on companies for facilitating TikTok's continued operations in the United States."

This liability is valued at up to $850 billion in the letter. This could be levied against Apple and Google as distributors of the app in the App Store and Google Play Store, and Oracle for providing cloud services.

It's added that the statute of limitations is five years, meaning that the administration that follows after Trump stops being president has the potential to reverse any decision on the matter, and cost the companies dearly.

Trump's extension, and any future attempts to kick the issue down the road " will require Oracle, Apple, Google, and other companies to continue risking ruinous legal liability, a difficult decision to justify in perpetuity."

Furthermore, it also warns against a Trump suggestion to complete a deal with Oracle to take a small stake in TikTok. The deal "would almost certainly not satisfy the Act's requirements around a qualified divestiture," the letter claims.

Request to cooperate



"There is a better solution: Work with Congress," the letter writers urge.

Introduced legislation, such as the "Extend the TikTok Deadline Act," would push the deadline back to October 16, 2025, but Republicans in the Senate blocked the bill. Trump is told that, to get more time to complete the deal, he should instruct Senate Republicans to pass the legislation.

The President is also asked to work with Congress on modifications to the "Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act" to make sure that the Oracle deal or similar solutions would prevent TikTok from going offline.

"Regardless of your approach, the path to saving TikTok should run through Capitol Hill," the letter also says.

With less than two weeks to go until the April 5 deadline, there's not much time for Trump to work with Congress or the Senate on the matter, let alone to make a deal on the business. Even with its piles of cash, Apple is not a realistic buyer for the social network at all.

There's also the matter of whether Trump will listen to the Democratic senators in the first place. It could well end up with a last-minute executive order attempting to extend the deadline once again.

In any case, there's a very real possibility that Apple, Google, Oracle, and anyone else deemed liable for keeping TikTok available could face a hefty fine in a few years, if the following administration is unfavorable.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,639member
    I don’t see how Apple or Google or anyone else at the private company level can be held liable for the F up at the governmental Executive branch, Congress or the Justice department, I thought they were there to provide stability, leadership, and brains, the same applies to the court system where all of this mess is going to eventually end up at anyway, I guess that planning or thinking ahead is too much hope for in modern America at the executive/congressional level…..
    edited March 25
    iOS_Guy80JFC_PAforgot usernameneoncatronn
     2Likes 3Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 7
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,463member
    I'm old enough to remember that it was Trump 45 that was behind the initial ban, but later, I'd surmise that Trump was "transactionally influenced" to consider a sale to transition Tik Tok to a fully owned American company, over a complete ban.


    DAalsethronn
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 7
    Before this administration, I would never have seriously suggested the following, but there are no good government rules anymore, or anyone to enforce them. He could be waiting for the price to drop low enough, and then have Musk and/or the Trump kids buy it.

    Even if the companies have a defense, they would still have to deal with costly litigation if prosecuted by the next administration. Additionally, considering Trump’s bullying behavior, it wouldn’t be surprising if he later changes his mind and attacks the companies if they do something that displeases him. 
    ronnFileMakerFellerbageljoey
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 7
    longpathlongpath Posts: 411member
    I’ve yet to see how this law works without relying on a particularly perverse reading of the commerce clause & completely ignoring the takings clause.
    randominternetpersontiredskillsronnFileMakerFeller
     3Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 7
    longpath said:
    I’ve yet to see how this law works without relying on a particularly perverse reading of the commerce clause & completely ignoring the takings clause.
    Good point. Also could argue that it violates the Constitutional prohibition of bills of attainder (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder)
    tiredskills
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 7
    sunman42sunman42 Posts: 331member
    Before this administration, I would never have seriously suggested the following, but there are no good government rules anymore, or anyone to enforce them. He could be waiting for the price to drop low enough, and then have Musk and/or the Trump kids buy it.

    Even if the companies have a defense, they would still have to deal with costly litigation if prosecuted by the next administration. Additionally, considering Trump’s bullying behavior, it wouldn’t be surprising if he later changes his mind and attacks the companies if they do something that displeases him. 
    Isn’t this irrelevant? Hasn’t the Chinese government made it clear that they will never turn over the secret sauce algorithm that is central to the user experience? I know there’s one or two very wealthy white males with friends in VCwho think they could buy everything else (including the user data) and build a social media that the kids will flock to in droves, but does anyone with any sense believe that?
    williamlondonronndanox
     2Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 7
    lukeilukei Posts: 400member
    TikTok could always build their own App Store /s
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.