The US Justice Department has urged a federal appeals court to reject TikTok‘s emergency request to delay a law requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest from the app by 19 January or face a nationwide ban. TikTok argued the law threatens to shut down one of America’s most popular social media platforms, which boasts over 170 million US users, while the Justice Department maintains that continued Chinese ownership poses a national security risk.
While the law would not immediately block users from accessing TikTok, the Justice Department admitted the lack of ongoing support would eventually render the app inoperable. A three-judge appeals court panel recently upheld the divestment requirement, and ByteDance has asked the US Supreme Court to review the case.
The controversy places TikTok’s future in the hands of the incoming presidential administration. President Joe Biden could grant a 90-day extension to the divestment deadline before President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to prevent a ban, takes office on January 20. Trump’s stance on TikTok has been consistent since his unsuccessful attempts to ban the app during his first term.
The law also strengthens the US government’s powers to ban other foreign-owned apps over data security concerns, following a broader trend initiated under Trump, including an earlier attempt to block Tencent-owned WeChat. As legal battles continue, TikTok’s operations in the US hang in the balance.
TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, have filed an emergency motion with a federal appeals court to temporarily halt a US law that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok by 19 January or face a nationwide ban. The companies argue that without the delay, the popular app could shut down in the US, affecting 170 million monthly users and numerous businesses reliant on the platform.
The motion follows a decision by an appeals court panel upholding the divestment requirement. TikTok’s lawyers assert the Supreme Court should have time to review the case and highlight President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to prevent the ban. The incoming administration, they argue, could reconsider the law and render the case moot.
The law granting the US government authority to ban foreign-owned apps over data security concerns has faced criticism, with TikTok warning the decision could disrupt services globally. As the January deadline looms, ByteDance faces challenges in demonstrating sufficient progress toward a divestment to secure an extension, even as political and legal battles intensify.
The imminent adoption of a new UN cybercrime convention by the General Assembly has sparked significant concerns over its implications for global digital rights, particularly in the Arab region. Critics argue that the convention, as currently drafted, lacks sufficient human rights safeguards, potentially empowering authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent both domestically and internationally.
In the Arab region, existing cybercrime laws often serve as tools to curb freedom of expression, with vague terms criminalising online speech that might undermine state prestige or harm public morals. These restrictions contravene Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires limitations on expression to be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Such ambiguity in legal language fosters an environment of self-censorship, as individuals remain uncertain about the legal interpretation of their online content. The convention’s broad scope further alarms international cooperation in cases potentially infringing human rights. It allows for the collection of electronic evidence for ‘serious crimes,’ which are vaguely defined and could include acts like defamation or expressions of sexual orientation—punishable by severe penalties in some countries.
That provision risks enabling extensive surveillance and data-sharing among nations with weak human rights records. In the Arab region, existing cybercrime laws already permit intrusive surveillance and mass data collection without adequate safeguards, threatening individuals’ privacy rights. Countries like Tunisia and Palestine lack mechanisms to notify individuals after surveillance, removing their ability to seek redress for legal violations and exacerbating privacy concerns.
In light of these issues, Access Now and civil society organisations are urging UN member states to critically evaluate the convention and resist voting for its adoption in its current form. They recommend thorough national discussions to assess its human rights impacts and call for stronger safeguards in future negotiations.
Why does it matter?
Arab states are encouraged to align their cybercrime laws with international standards and engage civil society in discussions to demonstrate a genuine commitment to human rights. The overarching message is clear: without comprehensive reforms, the convention risks further eroding digital rights and undermining freedom of expression worldwide. It is imperative to ensure that any international treaty robustly protects human rights rather than enabling their violation under the guise of combating cybercrime.
A US federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell its US operations by 19 January or face a nationwide ban. The ruling marks a significant win for the Justice Department, citing national security concerns over ByteDance’s access to Americans’ data and its potential to influence public discourse. TikTok plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping to block the divestment order.
The decision reflects bipartisan efforts to counter perceived threats from China, with Attorney General Merrick Garland calling it a vital step in preventing the Chinese government from exploiting TikTok. Critics, including the ACLU, argue that banning the app infringes on First Amendment rights, as 170 million Americans rely on TikTok for creative and social expression. The Chinese Embassy denounced the ruling, warning it could damage US-China relations.
Unless overturned or extended by President Biden, the law could also set a precedent for restricting other foreign-owned apps. Meanwhile, TikTok’s rivals, such as Meta and Google, have seen gains in the wake of the decision, as advertisers prepare for potential shifts in the social media landscape.
A new lawsuit accuses Apple of illegally surveilling employees’ personal devices and iCloud accounts while restricting discussions about pay and workplace conditions. Filed in California by Amar Bhakta, a digital advertising employee, the suit claims Apple mandates software installations on personal devices used for work, enabling access to private data such as emails, photos, and health information. The lawsuit also alleges Apple enforces confidentiality policies that hinder whistleblowing and discussions about working conditions.
Bhakta asserts he was instructed to avoid discussing his work on podcasts and remove job-related details from LinkedIn. The complaint argues these practices suppress employee rights, including whistleblowing and job market mobility. Apple denies the claims, stating they lack merit and emphasising its commitment to employee training on workplace rights.
This case joins other legal challenges faced by Apple, including allegations of underpaying female employees and discouraging discussions about workplace bias and pay disparity. Filed under a California law allowing workers to sue on behalf of the state, the lawsuit could lead to penalties, with a portion allocated to employees bringing the claims.
Australia‘s government is conducting a world-first trial to enforce its national social media ban for children under 16, focusing on age-checking technology. The trial, set to begin in January and run through March, will involve around 1,200 randomly selected Australians. It will help guide the development of effective age verification methods, as platforms like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Snapchat must prove they are taking ‘reasonable steps’ to keep minors off their services or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
The trial is overseen by the Age Check Certification Scheme and will test several age-checking techniques, such as video selfies, document uploads for verification, and email cross-checking. Although platforms like YouTube are exempt, the trial is seen as a crucial step for setting a global precedent for online age restrictions, which many countries are now considering due to concerns about youth mental health and privacy.
The trial’s outcomes could influence how other nations approach enforcing age restrictions, despite concerns from some lawmakers and tech companies about privacy violations and free speech. The government has responded by ensuring that no personal data will be required without alternatives. The age-check process could significantly shape global efforts to regulate social media access for children in the coming years.
Australia has passed a landmark law banning children under 16 from using social media, following a fast-moving push led by South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas. The law, which takes effect in November 2025, aims to protect young people from the harmful effects of social media, including mental health issues linked to cyberbullying and body image problems. The bill has widespread support, with a government survey showing 77% of Australians backing the measure. However, it has sparked significant opposition from tech companies and privacy advocates, who argue that the law is rushed and could push young users to more dangerous parts of the internet.
The push for the national ban gained momentum after Malinauskas’s state-level initiative to restrict social media access for children under 14 in September. This led to a broader federal response, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government introducing a nationwide version of the policy. The legislation eliminates parental discretion, meaning no child under 16 will be able to use social media without facing fines for platforms that fail to enforce the rules. This move contrasts with policies in countries like France and Florida, where minors can access social media with parental permission.
While the law has garnered support from most of Australia’s political leaders, it has faced strong criticism from social media companies like Meta and TikTok. These platforms warn that the law could drive teens to hidden corners of the internet and that the rushed process leaves many questions unanswered. Despite the backlash, the law passed with bipartisan support, and a trial of age-verification technology will begin in January to prepare for its full implementation.
The debate over the law highlights growing concerns worldwide about the impact of social media on young people. Although some critics argue that the law is an overreach, others believe it is a necessary step to protect children from online harm. With the law now in place, Australia has set a precedent that could inspire other countries grappling with similar issues.
Australia’s new law banning children under 16 from using social media has sparked strong criticism from major tech companies. The law, passed late on Thursday, targets platforms like Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, as well as TikTok, imposing fines of up to A$49.5 million for allowing minors to log in. Tech giants, including TikTok and Meta, argue that the legislation was rushed through parliament without adequate consultation and could have harmful unintended consequences, such as driving young users to less visible, more dangerous parts of the internet.
The law was introduced after a parliamentary inquiry into the harmful effects of social media on young people, with testimony from parents of children who had been bullied online. While the Australian government had warned tech companies about the impending legislation for months, the bill was fast-tracked in a chaotic final session of parliament. Critics, including Meta, have raised concerns about the lack of clear evidence linking social media to mental health issues and question the rushed process.
Despite the backlash, the law has strong political backing, and the government is set to begin a trial of enforcement methods in January, with the full ban expected to take effect by November 2025. Australia’s long-standing tensions with major US-based tech companies, including previous legislation requiring platforms to pay for news content, are also fueling the controversy. As the law moves forward, both industry representatives and lawmakers face challenges in determining how it will be practically implemented.
Australia’s recent approval of a social media ban for children under 16 has sparked mixed reactions nationwide. While the government argues that the law sets a global benchmark for protecting youth from harmful online content, critics, including tech giants like TikTok, warn that it could push minors to darker corners of the internet. The law, which will fine platforms like Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and TikTok up to A$49.5 million if they fail to enforce it, takes effect one year after a trial period begins in January.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised the importance of protecting children’s physical and mental health, citing the harmful impact of social media on body image and misogynistic content. Despite widespread support—77% of Australians back the measure—many are divided. Some, like Sydney resident Francesca Sambas, approve of the ban, citing concerns over inappropriate content, while others, like Shon Klose, view it as an overreach that undermines democracy. Young people, however, expressed their intent to bypass the restrictions, with 11-year-old Emma Wakefield saying she would find ways to access social media secretly.
This ban positions Australia as the first country to impose such a strict regulation, ahead of other countries like France and several US states that have restrictions based on parental consent. The swift passage of the law, which was fast-tracked through parliament, has drawn criticism from social media companies, which argue the law was rushed and lacked proper scrutiny. TikTok, in particular, warned that the law could worsen risks to children rather than protect them.
The move has also raised concerns about Australia’s relationship with the United States, as figures like Elon Musk have criticised the law as a potential overreach. However, Albanese defended the law, drawing parallels to age-based restrictions on alcohol, and reassured parents that while enforcement may not be perfect, it’s a necessary step to protect children online.
Australia has approved a groundbreakinglaw banning children under 16 from accessing social media, following a contentious debate. The new regulation targets major tech companies like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, which will face fines of up to A$49.5 million if they allow minors to log in. Starting with a trial period in January, the law is set to take full effect in 2025. The move comes amid growing global concerns about the mental health impact of social media on young people, with several countries considering similar restrictions.
The law, which marks a significant political win for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has received widespread public support, with 77% of Australians backing the ban. However, it has faced opposition from privacy advocates, child rights groups, and social media companies, which argue the law was rushed through without adequate consultation. Critics also warn that it could inadvertently harm vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQIA or migrant teens, by cutting them off from supportive online communities.
Despite the backlash, many parents and mental health advocates support the ban, citing concerns about social media’s role in exacerbating youth mental health issues. High-profile campaigns and testimonies from parents of children affected by cyberbullying have helped drive public sentiment in favour of the law. However, some experts warn the ban could have unintended consequences, pushing young people toward more dangerous corners of the internet where they can avoid detection.
The law also has the potential to strain relations between Australia and the United States, as tech companies with major US ties, including Meta and X, have voiced concerns about its implications for internet freedom. While these companies have pledged to comply, there remain significant questions about how the law will be enforced and whether it can achieve its intended goals without infringing on privacy or digital rights.
