Judge stops TikTok ban in Montana

A federal judge in Montana on Thursday blocked a statewide ban on TikTok from taking effect, at least temporarily preventing the nation’s first ban on the popular video app.

The judge, Donald W. Molloy, said Montana could act as a leader in protecting its residents from harm, but that it “must act within the constitutional-legal context.” He said a ban on TikTok “restricts constitutionally protected First Amendment speech” and issued a preliminary injunction halting the ban.

Alex Haurek, a spokesperson for TikTok, said the company was “pleased that the judge struck down this unconstitutional law and that hundreds of thousands of Montanans can continue to express themselves, earn a living and find community on TikTok.”

Emilee Cantrell, a spokeswoman for the Montana Department of Justice, said Judge Molloy had “indicated several times that the analysis could change as the case progresses.” She added: “We look forward to presenting the full legal argument in defense of the law that protects Montanans from the acquisition and use of their data by the Chinese Communist Party.”

TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, has been embroiled in a legal battle with Montana since state lawmakers passed a bill banning the app in April. (The governor signed it in May.) Lawmakers said the ban would protect residents’ data from the Chinese government, significantly escalating the national push to ban TikTok from government-owned devices.

TikTok, which has long said it does not share U.S. user data with officials in Beijing, has called the law excessive and unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction. The fight is being closely watched by free speech advocates, Big Tech groups and policymakers who want to restrict the app in other states and nationally. The Biden administration has been considering a proposal from TikTok that the company says would address national security concerns.

Montana’s law was drafted by Austin Knudsen, the state’s Republican attorney general and a self-described China hawk. But legal experts expected the rule would struggle to hold up in court, with many saying it violates users’ First Amendment rights. In 2020, federal judges blocked President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to ban the app, saying the government most likely overstepped its authority by invoking emergency economic powers.

“Banning TikTok sets a dangerous precedent for how we regulate free speech online,” said Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, which has criticized Montana’s law. “Restricting access to foreign media is something we usually associate with authoritarian regimes, and we should be very careful before giving that kind of power to our government. The Montana case is therefore an extremely important case.”

At a hearing before Judge Molloy in October, TikTok said Montana could have introduced a data privacy law or taken other steps to address its concerns.

TikTok sued Montana and funded a separate lawsuit its creators filed in the state; the two suits are now consolidated.

During the hearing, Ambika Kumar, lawyer for the TikTok creators, said: “Our position is not that the state can never regulate anything on the internet. Our position is that the state has gone completely overboard.”

Montana disagreed. “There is simply no way to ensure the safety of Montanans from using TikTok other than a flat ban until ties with China are severed,” said Christian Corrigan, the state’s attorney general. He added that a blanket social media law would not work because “TikTok is the only application linked to a hostile foreign power.”

Judge Molloy said in court that Montana could have done “many things” outside of a ban. He proposed rules around TikTok’s data collection or public service announcements starring Mr. Knudsen: “Why don’t you let the Attorney General go ahead and make a public announcement saying we believe TikTok has ties to the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese Army?”

Judge Molloy at one point called Montana’s efforts to protect users “paternalistic” and questioned why it was the only state to pass such a ban. “Do you find that a bit strange?” he asked.

“Everyone else is marching, and it’s kind of like the mother who watched the parade,” he said. “There’s one of the bands that comes by and a guy walks out of line and that’s her son. She said, ‘Look. The whole band is out of sync, except my son.’”

Mr. Corrigan responded that “states are taking new types of measures all the time,” and that being the first “doesn’t necessarily put it out of line.”

Judge Molloy’s decision will likely be noticed by other lawmakers in other states.

In September, a group of eighteen Republican attorneys general met filed summary proceedings supported Montana’s ban and argued that the court should deny TikTok’s request for an injunction.

The group said in the filing that it had a “compelling interest” in the case, arguing that states have always had “the power to protect their citizens from deceptive and harmful business practices,” and that federal law does not allow states to prevented from protecting their citizens. citizens against such behavior. Indiana, Arkansas and Utah all filed their own lawsuits against TikTok in the past year.

“In my view,” Ms. Krishnan said, “there is no doubt that the ban is unconstitutional and should be lifted, but one reason so many of us are following the case is that many other states are looking at it.”

Jordyn Holman reporting contributed.