President Joe Biden has signed into law a foreign aid package that includes a provision to ban TikTok if its China-based parent company, ByteDance, fails to divest the app within a year. The legal action sets a deadline for ByteDance to take action, with an initial nine-month period to finalise a deal, extendable by another three months if progress is evident.
Initially, the legislation faced uncertainty in the Senate after passing in the House as a standalone bill. However, strategic political tactics in the House saw the TikTok bill combined with foreign aid to US allies, which compelled the Senate to consider and ultimately pass the measures together. The revised bill extended the divestment timeline from six months to a year, garnering broader support among lawmakers.
TikTok has indicated its intention to challenge the law in court even though legal challenges could delay enforcement, impacting the timeline for divestment. Additionally, there are uncertainties about China’s response and whether ByteDance will be permitted to sell TikTok along with its algorithm, a key asset driving the app’s popularity.
ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, has submitted a long-awaited risk assessment for its TikTok Lite service, recently launched in France and Spain, following regulatory threats of fines and potential bans from the European Commission. Regulators are concerned about the addictive nature of TikTok Lite, particularly its rewards system for users, and claim ByteDance didn’t complete a full risk assessment on time.
ByteDance now has until 24 April to defend itself against regulatory action, including possibly suspending the rewards program. Failure to comply with regulations could result in fines of up to 1% of its total annual income or periodic penalties of up to 5% of its average daily income under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
Meanwhile, in the US, legislation is swiftly advancing through Congress, requiring ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to divest its ownership within a year or face a US ban. The Senate has passed this measure as part of a foreign aid package, sending it to President Joe Biden for his expected approval. ByteDance will have nine months initially, with a possible three-month extension, to complete the sale, though legal challenges could cause delays.
Italy’s antitrust authority has fined two Amazon subsidiaries 10 million euros for alleged unfair commercial practices, a decision that Amazon plans to challenge through an appeal. The regulator accused Amazon of limiting consumers’ freedom of choice by automatically pre-setting a ‘Subscribe and Save’ option on its website for a wide range of products. This practice encouraged consumers to opt for recurring deliveries rather than one-off purchases, potentially restricting their ability to choose freely.
According to the authority, pre-ticking recurring purchases could lead consumers to buy products periodically, even without a genuine need, thus curtailing their freedom to choose. Amazon responded by contesting the decision and stating its intention to appeal. The company defended its ‘Subscribe and Save’ program, highlighting its benefits to customers regarding cost savings and convenience for routine purchases.
Amazon emphasised that the ‘Subscribe and Save’ option, which allows customers to schedule regular deliveries of essential items with a discount, has resulted in significant savings exceeding 40 million euros since its introduction in Italy. Despite the fine and regulatory scrutiny, Amazon maintains that its program continues to provide value to customers by simplifying their shopping experience and offering discounts on recurring purchases of everyday products.
Elon Musk’s feud with Australian authorities reached new heights as he advocated for the imprisonment of a senator and criticised the country’s gun laws in the wake of a court order targeting his platform, X. The dispute stemmed from X’s publication of a video depicting a knife attack on an Assyrian bishop during a church service in Sydney, prompting the federal court to temporarily halt the video’s display.
Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian “eSafety Commissar” is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?
In response to the court order, Musk accused Australian leaders of attempting to censor the internet, sparking condemnation from lawmakers and prompting Senator Jacqui Lambie to delete her X account in protest. Lambie called for Musk’s imprisonment, labelling him as ‘lacking a social conscience’. Musk, in turn, labelled Lambie as an ‘enemy of the people of Australia.’
Musk’s combative approach towards governments extends beyond Australia, as seen in his clashes with authorities in Brazil over social media content oversight. He further escalated tensions by endorsing posts criticising Australia’s gun laws and government, reacting with exclamation marks and amplifying messages questioning the integrity of Australian governance.
The legal battle between Musk’s platform and Australian authorities intensified during a court hearing, where X was accused of failing to fully comply with the temporary takedown order. Despite claims of compliance, the video remained accessible on X in Australia. The federal court judge extended the temporary takedown order until further hearings, citing the need for continued deliberation over the contentious issue.
The Senate has passed a foreign aid package that includes a bill mandating China-based company ByteDance to sell TikTok within a year or face a US ban on the platform. Having cleared both chambers of Congress, the legislation is now headed to President Joe Biden, who has committed to signing it into law. ByteDance will have an initial nine months to finalise a sale, with a possible three-month extension based on progress, though legal challenges could delay enforcement.
The bill’s successful passage through the Senate was achieved through strategic manoeuvring in the House, where it was included in a high-priority foreign aid package. This move compelled the Senate to address the TikTok issue earlier than anticipated. By extending the divestment timeline, more support was garnered in the Senate, resulting in a vote of 79-18 in favour of the bill.
Lawmakers and intelligence officials have voiced concerns over TikTok’s ownership by a China-based company. They cite potential data security risks due to China’s national security law and fear that the Chinese government’s influence could impact US user experiences.
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell stressed that the legislation aims to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage and harming vulnerable Americans, not to punish specific companies.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner highlighted worries about Chinese companies owing allegiance to the Chinese government and potential covert manipulation of social media platforms. He dismissed TikTok’s proposed data governance solution, Project Texas, as inadequate. Despite concerns among TikTok users, Warner assured that the legislation is not about silencing voices but addressing critical national security issues.
President Biden has expressed intent to promptly sign the bill into law to facilitate aid to Ukraine, while TikTok has signalled readiness to challenge the law in court if passed.
Japan’s antitrust watchdog has issued a directive to Google, stating that the US tech giant must address its advertising search restrictions that affect Yahoo in Japan. According to the Japan Fair Trade Commission, Google’s practices were found to impede fair competition in the advertising market, particularly in relation to Yahoo Japan Corp., which merged with Line, a Japanese social media platform.
The issue stems from Google’s keyword-targeted search advertising services, which Yahoo Japan utilised after a collaboration initiated in 2010. The Fair Trade Commission claims that Google imposed restrictions in its advertising agreement with Yahoo Japan that hindered competition in targeted search ads for over seven years. Google responded by dropping these restrictions following an investigation by the FTC into potential violations of the Anti-Monopoly Law.
In response to the commission’s findings, Google has pledged full cooperation and emphasised that the commission did not find outright violations of anti-monopoly laws. The company committed to implementing the commission’s directives to enhance search functions for Japanese users and advertisers. Meanwhile, Line Yahoo declined to comment on the matter.
Why does it matter?
Google will remain under scrutiny for the next three years to ensure compliance with necessary changes. However, the commission did not impose fines or other penalties on the tech giant, which remains popular in Japan. This action by the commission comes shortly after another legal setback for Google in Japan, where Japanese doctors filed a civil lawsuit against the company for allegedly allowing groundless derogatory and false comments on its platform. In response, Google stated its continuous efforts to combat misleading or false information through human oversight and technological solutions.
A Brazilian Supreme Court justice has issued an ultimatum to social media giant X, formerly known as Twitter, instructing them to clarify their apparent failure to fully comply with previous court orders. The directive comes amid an ongoing investigation initiated by Justice Alexandre de Moraes into Elon Musk, who declared his intention to reinstate accounts on X despite judicial directives to block them.
Justice Moraes, citing concerns over constitutional violations in X’s handling of Musk’s case, set a five-day deadline for the platform to respond. The inquiry was sparked by a report from federal police in Brazil, revealing active accounts on X that had been legally instructed to be blocked, contradicting the company’s claims of compliance.
According to the police report, these unblocked accounts retained the ability to attract new local followers and disseminate links for live-streaming videos, raising questions about X’s adherence to judicial orders. Moraes emphasised the urgency of the matter, urging X representatives to address the identified non-compliances detailed in the police report.
Why does it matter?
The development unfolds against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over the role of social media platforms in Brazil’s political landscape. Moraes is spearheading investigations into the proliferation of digital disinformation and hate speech, particularly during the tenure of former President Jair Bolsonaro. X’s purported failure to adhere to court orders adds another layer of complexity to ongoing efforts to combat online misinformation and protect democratic processes in Brazil.
The European Commission has warned TikTok that it may suspend a key feature of TikTok Lite in the European Union on Thursday if the company fails to address concerns regarding its impact on users’ mental health. This action is being taken under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates that large online platforms take action against harmful content or face fines of up to 6% of their global annual turnover.
Thierry Breton, the EU industry chief, emphasised the Commission’s readiness to implement interim measures, including suspending TikTok Lite, if TikTok does not provide compelling evidence of the feature’s safety. Breton highlighted concerns about potential addiction generated by TikTok Lite’s reward program.
The TikTok Lite app, recently launched in France and Spain, includes a reward program where users earn points by engaging in specific tasks on the platform. However, TikTok should have submitted a risk assessment report before the app’s launch, as required by the DSA. The Commission remains firm on enforcing regulations to protect users’ well-being amidst the growing influence of digital platforms.
Kyrgyzstan has banned TikTok following security service recommendations to safeguard children. The decision comes amid growing global scrutiny over the social media app’s impact on children’s mental health and data privacy.
The Kyrgyz digital ministry cited ByteDance’s failure to comply with child protection laws, sparking concerns from advocacy groups about arbitrary censorship. The decision reflects Kyrgyzstan’s broader trend of tightening control over media and civil society, departing from its relatively open stance.
This decision stems from legislative text approved last summer aimed at curbing the distribution of ‘harmful’ online content accessible to minors. Such content encompasses material featuring ‘non-traditional sexual relationships’ and those that undermine ‘family values,’ as well as promoting illegal conduct, substance abuse, or anti-social behaviours. Chinese officials have not publicly commented on this decision, although in March, Beijing accused the US of ‘bullying’ over similar actions against TikTok.
A military court in Moscow has reportedly sentenced Meta Platforms spokesperson Andy Stone to six years in prison in absentia for ‘publicly defending terrorism.’ This ruling comes amid Russia’s crackdown on Meta, which was designated as an extremist organisation in the country, resulting in the banning of Facebook and Instagram in 2022 due to Russia’s conflict with Ukraine.
Meta has yet to comment on the reported sentencing of Stone, who serves as the company’s communications director. Stone himself was unavailable for immediate response following the court’s decision. Stone’s lawyer, Valentina Filippenkova, indicated they intend to appeal the verdict, expressing a request for acquittal.
The Russian interior ministry initiated a criminal investigation against Stone late last year, although the specific charges were not disclosed then. According to state investigators, Stone’s online comments allegedly defended ‘aggressive, hostile, and violent actions’ against Russian soldiers involved in what Russia terms its ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine.
Why does it matter?
Stone’s sentencing underscores Russia’s stringent stance on online content related to its military activities in Ukraine, extending repercussions to individuals associated with Meta Platforms. The circumstances also reflect the broader context of heightened scrutiny and legal actions against perceived dissent and criticism within Russia’s digital landscape.
