4 ms·
Do they even have standing? The proposed "ban" is enforced on the app stores, so I could see Google or Apple have standing, if they don't want to be forced to d
by tantalor 3y ago
Do they even have standing? The proposed "ban" is enforced on the app stores, so I could see Google or Apple have standing, if they don't want to be forced to delete an app their users like. Meanwhile tiktok.com will still work in browsers.
- joecot 3y agoThey almost certainly would have standing. Banning their app from the app store clearly directly affects them. But they could instead just allow people to login on the mobile site and install it as a progressive web app, instead of forcing them to use the app so they can track people better.
- TMWNN 3y agoMy understanding is that you and tantalor are mistaken. The bill explicitly covers using TikTok as a web app.
- tantalor 3y agoHow would that be enforced??
- underseacables 3y agoDon't you remember when the FBI seized pirating sites?
- pr337h4m 3y agoThe text of the bill literally mentioned "ByteDance Inc" and "TikTok" by name. (which makes it a bill of attainder, and thus unconstitutional)
- ceejayoz 3y agoI believe it's only a bill of attainder if it imposes criminal penalties; I think the TikTok ban is regulatory/civil. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._General_Services_Administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._General_Services_Admi... might also matter.) > Finally, the Act did not violate the Bill of Attainder clause of the Constitution because this Act does not convict former President Nixon of a crime and does not expose him to prosecution.