TikTok And The DOJ Still Fighting It Out In Court Despite Oracle 'Deal'
from the look-at-that dept
Even though Trump gave his supposed okay to the grifty TikTok/Oracle hosting deal, it appears that TikTok, ByteDance and the Trump administration are still busy fighting this out in court. The Trump rules to ban the app are still set to go into effect on Sunday. And while WeChat users were able to block the rules from going into effect, they still technically are scheduled to go into effect for TikTok this weekend.
TikTok has asked for an injunction to stop the ban and the court is going to decide at the last minute whether to issue an injunction in the TikTok case as well. This is, in part, because the Oracle deal (which is not a sale and accomplishes none of the stated goals of the original executive order) still needs approval from the Chinese side -- and there are indications that China wants a better deal.
After a hearing on Thursday, the judge ordered the government to either respond to the request for an injunction or to submit "a notice describing [the DOJ's] plan to delay the effective date of the subset of prohibited transactions directed against TikTok that are scheduled to go into effect" on Sunday at midnight. The DOJ, rather than say they were delaying the TikTok ban, instead, filed an opposition to the proposed injunction, though it did so under seal so we can't see what the DOJ said.
The judge is expected to rule by Sunday, and it's possible (likely) that he'll drag the lawyers from both sides into (virtual) court this weekend. The whole thing remains insane. The President should never have the right to just ban a random social media app like this. Hopefully, the court agrees to an injunction while everything else gets worked out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ban, china, commerce department, donald trump, injunction
Companies: bytedance, oracle, tiktok
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"the Oracle deal (which is not a sale and accomplishes none of the stated goals of the original executive order) "
...but is both a handy gift to a major Trump donor, and likely to harm TikTok due to the company's relative incompetence compared to its competitors in the space where that function operates, meaning that without the political bootlicking the deal would never have been given to them.
Isn't outright government corruption fun?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where's the promised filing? And how did DoC get involved???
So... in Docket #20 Defendant (Donald) says:
Defendant [Donald in his official capacity] filed no such docs yesterday nor today.
Docket item #21 shows the Department of Commerce involving itself... and I am not sure that's legit but it's also under seal.
Docket item #22 shows opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an injunction and expedited hearing, and finally we learn that even though the suit was brought against Donald, the government is trying to interject the Secy. of Commerce as the real person... but not doing it through a request to amend a pleading, adding new defendants, removing old defendants, etc.
I'm not a lawyer but this seems to be not the way the US federal rules of pleading allow adding parties. I've looked through the FRCP... but... am not an expert.
E
So, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if the court's order
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh if only...
Can you imagine the absolute hilarity that would be Trump trying to write out a legal filing? The judge could sink the DOJ's case entirely simply by demanding that the defendant(Trump) write up the legal filing himself, as I'm pretty sure he's sooner recite the entirety of Shakespeare in latin from memory than be able to write so much as a single page of a legal document without being coached through every single sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I like how stuff is under seal, to make it look like there is actual natsec dirt involved, when all they want to do is hide their bullshit pleading from the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oh if only...
Trump was sued in his official capacity. The DoJ will respond. Even if he wasn't he could hire and has always hired a lawyer. Trump doesn't write out legal things. People who have had strokes don't write. Nor read.
Nars is a planet.
Covfefe is what you have in the morning.
Hamburder is what you eat and also give to pro athletes as a win.
Walter Reed is where you go after 3 mini strokes.
What this administration has taught is us we need one little law.
RIGHTS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATION ARE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE.
We [speaking democratically] elected the biggest fraud and thief to the highest office in the US and the third most powerful job in the world. We elected people in the Senate like Moscow Mitch and Lying Lyndsey to support him.
Time to fix.
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh if only...
Oh come on, that's a scurrilous accusation.
Just like on the golf course, mini-strokes don't count against Trump if no one is watching. You can't prove anything, especially not using those lying traitors who he fired because they were no good.
OK, back to my morring covfefe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"...but is both a handy gift to a major Trump donor, and likely to harm TikTok due to the company's relative incompetence compared to its competitors..."
And let's not forget that, like all the previous situations where Trump went head-to-head with China this looks as if it'll end with China getting a better deal than they already had as long as they don't laugh out too loudly while The Donald hoists his loss to the skies and crows about his "Win".
Well, he's not wrong per se. It's a win for him as long as no one questions him. And none of his cult following will, for he keeps promising them that he'll fuck the liberals. As long as he keeps telling them that he could sell their daughters on e-bay and they wouldn't even grumble.
"Isn't outright government corruption fun?"
This isn't corruption anymore. This is just the way this particular system of government was designed to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh if only...
"We [speaking democratically] elected the biggest fraud and thief to the highest office in the US and the third most powerful job in the world. We elected people in the Senate like Moscow Mitch and Lying Lyndsey to support him."
If you're going to speak democratically then I'd argue that the US ought to stop using that word.
Gerrymandering. Voter disenfranchisement. Electorate college shenanigans. The dismantling of mail-in voting...and the fact that for many people the presidential elections are so badly manned the lines outside the ballot office can be hours long - and thus cripplingly inconvenient to anyone who struggles to make ends meet - just means US "democracy" has less credibility than some third world countries I could name.
Even before we add "Mr Prump" to lead that particular clown parade.
To think the founding fathers went with a republic because they were afraid of mob rule.
You might just as well, by now, have a horde of jackbooted thugs round up people at random and tell them to tick the box for <candidate X> at threat of a beating. The results would be just as credible, and a lot faster.
Before the EU I could have pointed to a few dozen nations which manage democracy a whole lot better. Today it's a sign of the times that for most major global power blocks politics has been rolled right back to feudalism.
Now it just remains to be seen if the King will abdicate his throne willingly or has to be deposed by the irate citizenry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"I like how stuff is under seal, to make it look like there is actual natsec dirt involved..."
There is.
I mean, what else can you call even more evidence that the president of the nation is corrupt enough to barter and sell other people's property to his friends and highest bidders BUT a direct issue of national security? Especially when the "sale" is forced because, apparently, teens twerking on a social app is of national interest to begin with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oh if only...
Well, we already have that in the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If it's not working in the Constitution, I don't think a statute will help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]