TikTok on the Hill. PLEASE Read this bill.
It's not *really* a ban. It's a call for a company to divest foreign ownership, based on adversarial control. Can it happen to an American company, if the President's Men label it "foreign adversary"?
This legislation has passed to the US Senate. Do not readily rely on Internet hype or the intuition of pundits. It’s the length of a blog. Read it.
Call your Senators and ask your questions. Be prepared to share the bill number and the text.
My first big question for any reader goes to the determination of a foreign adversary. As written this determination is made by the President’s foreign policy men, not the US Congress.
Is this limited to ByteDance or are other companies with even more PRC ownership stake in the crosshairs?
Can an American company be labelled “controlled by a foreign adversary”?
Union Calendar No. 344
118th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 7521
[Report No. 118–417]
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 5, 2024
Mr. Gallagher (for himself, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Latta, Mr. Carson, Mr. Hern, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Roy, Ms. Sherrill, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Ms. Stevens, Mr. Norman, Mr. Auchincloss, Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Torres of New York, Mr. Moolenaar, Ms. Brown, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mrs. Hinson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
March 11, 2024
Additional sponsors: Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gimenez, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Deluzio, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Veasey, Mr. Allen, Ms. Slotkin, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Ms. Salinas, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Pfluger, Ms. Scholten, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Costa, Mr. Alford, Mr. LaTurner, Mrs. Bice, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Lawler, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Mills, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Buchanan, and Mrs. Spartz
March 11, 2024
Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
A BILL
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act”.
SEC. 2. Prohibition of foreign adversary controlled applications.
(a) In general.—
(1) PROHIBITION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATIONS.—It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update (or enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of) a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out, within the land or maritime borders of the United States, any of the following:
(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.
(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.
(2) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply—
(A) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) in the case of an application that satisfies the definition of a foreign adversary controlled application pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B), beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of the relevant determination of the President under such subsection.
(b) Data and information portability to alternative applications.—Before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to a foreign adversary controlled application, the entity that owns or controls such application shall provide, upon request by a user of such application within the land or maritime borders of United States, to such user all the available data related to the account of such user with respect to such application. Such data shall be provided in a machine readable format and shall include any data maintained by such application with respect to the account of such user, including content (including posts, photos, and videos) and all other account information.
(c) Exemptions.—
(1) EXEMPTIONS FOR QUALIFIED DIVESTITURES.—Subsection (a)—
(A) does not apply to a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed before the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) would begin to apply to such application; and
(B) shall cease to apply in the case of a foreign adversary controlled application with respect to which a qualified divestiture is executed after the date on which a prohibition under subsection (a) applies to such application.
(2) EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN NECESSARY SERVICES.—Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to services provided with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that are necessary for an entity to attain compliance with such subsections.
(d) Enforcement.—
(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—
(A) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (a) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $5,000 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States determined to have accessed, maintained, or updated a foreign adversary controlled application as a result of such violation.
(B) DATA AND INFORMATION VIOLATIONS.—An entity that violates subsection (b) shall be subject to pay a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount that results from multiplying $500 by the number of users within the land or maritime borders of the United States affected by such violation.
(2) ACTIONS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—The Attorney General—
(A) shall conduct investigations related to potential violations of subsection (a) or (b), and, if such an investigation results in a determination that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General shall pursue enforcement under paragraph (1); and
(B) may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States for appropriate relief, including civil penalties under paragraph (1) or declaratory and injunctive relief.
(e) Severability.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If any provision of this section or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—If the application of any provision of this section is held invalid with respect to a foreign adversary controlled application that satisfies the definition of such term pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(A), such invalidity shall not affect or preclude the application of the same provision of this section to such foreign adversary controlled application by means of a subsequent determination pursuant to subsection (g)(3)(B).
(f) Rule of construction.—Nothing in this Act may be construed—
(1) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, other than enforcement of subsection (a) or (b);
(2) to authorize the Attorney General to pursue enforcement, under this section, against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application; or
(3) except as expressly provided herein, to alter or affect any other authority provided by or established under another provision of Federal law.
(g) Definitions.—In this section:
(1) CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “controlled by a foreign adversary” means, with respect to a covered company or other entity, that such company or other entity is—
(A) a foreign person that is domiciled in, is headquartered in, has its principal place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country;
(B) an entity with respect to which a foreign person or combination of foreign persons described in subparagraph (A) directly or indirectly own at least a 20 percent stake; or
(C) a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
(2) COVERED COMPANY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered company” means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that—
(i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content;
(ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);
(iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and
(iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application.
(B) EXCLUSION.—The term “covered company” does not include an entity that operates a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.
(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by—
(A) any of—
(i) ByteDance, Ltd.;
(ii) TikTok;
(iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or
(iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(B) a covered company that—
(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—
(I) a public notice proposing such determination; and
(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.
(4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(5) INTERNET HOSTING SERVICE.—The term “internet hosting service” means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of 1 or more websites or online services, and which may include file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.
(6) QUALIFIED DIVESTITURE.—The term “qualified divestiture” means a divestiture or similar transaction that—
(A) the President determines, through an interagency process, would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary; and
(B) the President determines, through an interagency process, precludes the establishment or maintenance of any operational relationship between the United States operations of the relevant foreign adversary controlled application and any formerly affiliated entities that are controlled by a foreign adversary, including any cooperation with respect to the operation of a content recommendation algorithm or an agreement with respect to data sharing.
(7) SOURCE CODE.—The term “source code” means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a software application, including any publishing language, programming language, protocol, or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.
(8) UNITED STATES.—The term “United States” includes the territories of the United States.
SEC. 3. Judicial review.
(a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
(b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act.
(c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought—
(1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination.
Elon Musk & Thomas Massie's voice concern on this bill.
https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1767545265223864595?s=20
I just read Taibbi’s article con-tic-tak bill with a call to contact everybody’s various politicians. I think he makes a slightly better case for how this might relate to 2003 Patriot Act, but my read of his argument is, “the bill is bad because it will be abused,” and I found the case he laid out pretty speculative and not overly convincing.
I’ll listen to America This Week and maybe I’ll see it differently, but Walter is often paranoid about things that, IMO have already happened and while I love him to death, I don’t always think it’s the right position.
Anyway, I’m glad to hear more arguments, I like this discussion, but I’m very, “meh” about this particular controversy.