Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok on the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) based on the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine, and the Due Process Clause and Takings ...
In December 2022, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed two separate lawsuits against TikTok in the Allen County Superior Court in Fort Wayne, Indiana. [12] The first complaint alleged that the platform exposed inappropriate content to minors, and that TikTok "intentionally falsely reports the frequency of sexual content, nudity, and mature/suggestive themes" on their platform which made ...
A protester waits with a placard as justices hear a bid by TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, to block a law intended to force the sale of the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face ...
A protester waits with a placard as justices hear a bid by TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, to block a law intended to force the sale of the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face ...
The US Supreme Court appeared ready Thursday to uphold a law forcing Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell off TikTok, with all nine justices seeming to lend credence to national security ...
Anderson v. TikTok, 2:22-cv-01849, (E.D. Pa.), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in which the court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, does not bar claims against TikTok, a video-sharing social media platform, regarding TikTok's recommendations to users via its algorithm.
The TikTok users said they will lose the most powerful mechanism available to make their voices heard unless the high court blocks a federal law requiring TikTok break its ties with the Chinese ...
He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively police every uploaded video "would contravene the structure and operation of the D.M.C.A." [8] Stanton also noted that YouTube had successfully enacted a mass take-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007, indicating that this was a viable process for addressing infringement claims.