TikTok faced off with the U.S. government in federal court on Monday, arguing a law that could ban the platform in a few short months is unconstitutional while the Justice Department said it is needed to eliminate a national security risk posed by the popular social media company.

In a more than two-hour appearance before a panel of three judges at a federal appeals court in Washington, attorneys for the two sides – and content creators – were pressed on their best arguments for and against the law that forces TikTok and its China-based parent company ByteDance to break ties by mid-January or lose one of their biggest markets in the world.

Andrew Pincus, a veteran attorney representing the two companies, argued in court that the law unfairly targets the company and runs afoul of the First Amendment because TikTok Inc. – the U.S. arm of TikTok – is an American entity. After his remarks, another attorney representing content creators who are also challenging the law argued it violates the rights of U.S. speakers and is akin to prohibiting Americans from publishing on foreign-owned media outlets, such as Politico, Al Jazeera or Spotify.

“The law before this court is unprecedented and its effect would be staggering,” Pincus said, adding the act would impose speech limitations based on future risks.

The measure, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China.

The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

Daniel Tenny, an attorney for the Justice Department, acknowledged in court that data collection is useful for many companies for commercial purposes, such as target advertisements or tailoring videos to users’ interests.

“The problem is that same data is extremely valuable to a foreign adversary trying to compromise the security of the United States,” he said.

Pincus, the attorney for TikTok, said Congress should have erred on the side of disclosing any potential propaganda on the platform instead of pursuing a divesture-or-ban approach, which the two companies have maintained will only lead to a ban. He also said statements from lawmakers before the law was passed shows they were motivated by the propaganda they perceived to be on TikTok, namely an imbalance between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel content on the platform during the war in Gaza.

But the panel – composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges – expressed some skepticism, pressing the attorneys on TikTok’s side if they believe the government has any leeway to curtail an influential media company controlled by a foreign entity in an adversarial nation. In parts of their questions about TikTok’s foreign ownership, the judges asked if the arguments presented would apply in cases where the U.S. is engaged in war.

Judge Neomi Rao, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, said the creators suing over the law could continue speaking on TikTok if the company is sold or if they choose to post content on other platforms. But Jeffrey Fisher, their attorney, argued there are not “interchangeable mediums” for them because TikTok — which has 170 million U.S. users — is unique in its look and feel, and the types of audiences it allows them to reach.

Paul Tran, one of the content creators who is suing the government, told reporters outside the courthouse on Monday that a skincare company him and his wife founded in 2018 was struggling until they started making TikTok videos three years ago. He said they had tried to market their products through traditional advertising and other social media apps. But the TikTok videos were the only thing that drove views, helping them get enough orders to sell out of products and even appear on TV shows.

“TikTok truly invigorated our company and saved it from collapse,” Tran said.

Currently, he noted the company – Love and Pebble – sells more than 90% of its products over TikTok, which is covering the legal fees for the creator lawsuit.

In the second half of the hearing, the panel pressed the Justice Department on First Amendment challenges to the law.

Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said efforts to stem content manipulation through government action does set off alarm bells and impact people who receive speech on TikTok. Tenny, the attorney for the DOJ, responded by saying the law doesn’t target TikTok users or creators and that any impact on them is only indirect.

For its part, TikTok has repeatedly said it does not share U.S. user data with the Chinese government and that concerns the government has raised have never been substantiated. In their lawsuit, TikTok and ByteDance have also claimed divestment is not possible. And even if it was, they say TikTok would be reduced to a shell of its former self because it would be stripped of the technology that powers it.

Though the government’s primary reasoning for the law is public, significant portions of its court filings includes information that’s redacted.

In one of the redacted statements submitted in late July, the Justice Department claimed TikTok took direction from the Chinese government about content on its platform, without disclosing additional details about when or why those incidents occurred. Casey Blackburn, a senior U.S. intelligence official, wrote in a legal statement that ByteDance and TikTok “have taken action in response” to Chinese government demands “to censor content outside of China.” Though the intelligence community had “no information” that this has happened on the platform operated by TikTok in the U.S., Blackburn said it may occur.

But the companies have argued the government could have taken a more tailored approach to resolve its concerns.

During high-stakes negotiations with the Biden administration more than two years ago, TikTok presented the government with a draft 90-page agreement that allows a third party to monitor the platform’s algorithm, content moderation practices and other programming. But it said a deal was not reached because government officials essentially walked away from the negotiating table in August 2022.

Justice officials have argued complying with the draft agreement is impossible, or would require extensive resources, due to the size and the technical complexity of the platform. They say the only thing that would resolve the government’s concerns is severing the ties between TikTok and ByteDance.

The Justice Department sued TikTok on Friday, accusing the company of violating children’s online privacy law and running afoul of a settlement it had reached with another federal agency.

The complaint, filed together with the Federal Trade Commission in a California federal court, comes as the U.S. and the prominent social media company are embroiled in yet another legal battle that will determine if – or how – TikTok will continue to operate in the country.

The latest lawsuit focuses on allegations that TikTok, a trend-setting platform popular among young users, and its China-based parent company ByteDance violated a federal law that requires kid-oriented apps and websites to get parental consent before collecting personal information of children under 13. It also says the companies failed to honor requests from parents who wanted their children’s accounts deleted, and chose not to delete accounts even when the firms knew they belonged to kids under 13.

“This action is necessary to prevent the defendants, who are repeat offenders and operate on a massive scale, from collecting and using young children’s private information without any parental consent or control,” Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in a statement.

TikTok said it disagreed with the allegations, “many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed.”

“We offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors,” the company said in a statement.

The U.S. decided to file the lawsuit following an investigation by the FTC that looked into whether the companies were complying with a previous settlement involving TikTok’s predecessor, Musical.ly.

In 2019, the federal government sued Musical.ly, alleging it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, by failing to notify parents about its collection and use of personal information for kids under 13.

That same year, Musical.ly — acquired by ByteDance in 2017 and merged with TikTok — agreed to pay $5.7 million to resolve those allegations. The two companies were also subject to a court order requiring them to comply with COPPA, which the government says hasn’t happened.

In the complaint, the Justice Department and the FTC allege TikTok has knowingly allowed children to create accounts and retained their personal information without notifying their parents. This practice extends to accounts created in “Kids Mode,” a version of TikTok for children under 13. The feature allows users to view videos but bars them from uploading content.

The two agencies allege the information collected included activities on the app and other identifiers used to build user profiles. They also accuse TikTok of sharing the data with other companies – such as Meta’s Facebook and an analytics company called AppsFlyer – to persuade “Kids Mode” users to be on the platform more, a practice TikTok called “re-targeting less active users.”

The complaint says TikTok also allowed children to create accounts without having to provide their age, or obtain parental approval, by using credentials from third-party services. It classified these as “age unknown” accounts, which the agencies say have grown into millions.

After parents discovered some of their children’s accounts and asked for them to be deleted, federal officials said TikTok asked them to go through a convoluted process to deactivate them and frequently did not honor their requests.

Overall, the government said TikTok employed deficient policies that were unable to prevent children’s accounts from proliferating on its app and suggested the company was not taking the issue seriously. In at least some periods since 2019, the complaint said TikTok’s human moderators spent an average of five to seven seconds reviewing accounts flagged as potentially belonging to a child. It also said TikTok and ByteDance have technology they can use to identify and remove children’s accounts, but do not use them for that reason.

The alleged violations have resulted in millions of children under 13 using the regular TikTok app, allowing them to interact with adults and access adult content, the complaint said.

In March, a person with the matter had told the AP the FTC’s investigation was also looking into whether TikTok violated a portion of federal law that prohibits “unfair and deceptive” business practices by denying that individuals in China had access to U.S. user data.

Those allegations were not included in the complaint, which is asking the court to fine the companies and enter a preliminary injunction to prevent future violations.

Other social media companies have also come under fire for how they’ve handled children’s data.

In 2019, Google and YouTube agreed to pay a $170 million fine to settle allegations that the popular video site had illegally collected personal information on children without their parents’ consent.

And last fall, dozens of U.S. states sued Meta Platforms Inc., which owns Facebook and Instagram, for harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by knowingly and deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. A lawsuit filed by 33 states claims that Meta routinely collects data on children under 13 without their parents’ consent, in violation of COPPA. Nine attorneys general are also filing lawsuits in their respective states, bringing the total number of states taking action to 41 plus Washington, D.C.

Deceptions such as phony emails from people impersonating online retailers like Amazon are nothing new. But phishing attempts increase amid the heavy spending seen during significant sales events, whether it’s Black Friday or Prime Day, according to the Better Business Bureau.

“This is a huge moment on the retail calendar,” Josh Planos, vice president of communications and public relations at the Better Business Bureau, previously told The Associated Press. “And because of that, it represents an enormous opportunity for a scammer, con artist or even just an unethical business or organization to capitalize on the moment and separate folks from their hard-earned money.”

Prime Day, a two-day discount event for Amazon Prime members, kicks off on Tuesday and runs through Wednesday. In updated guidance published last week, the Better Business Bureau reminded consumers to watch out for lookalike websites, too-good-to-be-true social media ads, and unsolicited emails or calls during sales events this month.

Consumers might need to be more vigilant this year than ever before. In June, the Better Business Bureau published a report that said it received a record number of phishing reports in 2023. Reports are also trending up so far this year, the organization said.

Meanwhile, in a report released this month, the Israel-founded cybersecurity company Check Point Software Technologies said more than 1,230 new websites that associated themselves with Amazon popped up in June. The vast majority of them were malicious or appeared suspicious, according to Check Point.

Scott Knapp, director of worldwide buyer risk prevention at Amazon, identifies two areas that the company has seen hoaxes around come Prime Day in recent years: Prime membership and order confirmations.

Last year, for example, more than two-third of scams reported by Amazon customers claimed to be related to order or account issues, Knapp wrote in an emailed statement. People reported getting unsolicited calls or emails saying there was something wrong with their Prime membership and seeking bank account or other payment information to reinstate the accounts, Knapp explained.

Urging consumers to confirm an order they didn’t place is also a common tactic at this time of year, he added. Scammers might pick something expensive, like a smartphone, to get attention — and again ask for payment information or send a malicious link. They might also try to lure in consumers with promises of a giveaway, or by using language that creates a false sense of urgency.

Amazon is attempting “to ensure scammers are not using our brand to take advantage of people who trust us,” Knapp wrote, adding that customers can confirm their purchases and verify messages from the company on its app or website.

Additional scams are probably out there, but it’s hard to know what form they might take before this year’s Prime Day begins. Still, experts note that the same shopping scams tend to resurface year after year.

“Typically, the bones remain the same,” Planos said, pointing to fake delivery scams, email phishing and other repeated methods. “It’s always a ploy to separate consumers from (their) personal and payment information.”

But online hoaxes are also constantly evolving to become more sophisticated, Planos and others warn. That means images might look more legitimate, text messages may sound more convincing and fake websites that look very similar to real shopping destinations.

Amazon’s Knapp has said that with artificial intelligence “starting to leak in,” the scams targeting e-commerce shoppers follow the same approach but with a machine populating an email or text instead of a person.

According to data from the Federal Trade Commission, consumers reported losing about $10 billion to fraud in 2023, a 14% jump from 2022. Online shopping scams were the second most-reported form of fraud, following impostor scams, the FTC said.

Both the FTC and Better Business Bureau provide consumers with tips to avoid scams year-round. Guidance includes blocking unwanted messages, not giving financial information to unsolicited callers and checking links before clicking — secure websites, for example, will have “HTTPS” in the URL, Planos notes, never “HTTP.”

Scammers will often pressure you to act immediately, experts say. It’s important to pause and trust your gut. Experts also urge consumers to report scams to regulators.

Beyond scams that impersonate companies or retailers, it’s also important to be cautious of counterfeit products and fake reviews on the sites of trusted retailers. Just because you’re shopping on Amazon, for example, doesn’t mean you’re buying from Amazon. The online shopping giant, like eBay, Walmart and others, has vast third-party marketplaces.

The quality and look of counterfeit products has significantly increased over recent years, Planos notes, making the activity difficult to police. A good rule of thumb is looking at the price tag — if the product is being sold for less than 75% of its year-round market rate, “that’s a pretty big red flag,” he says.

Sketchy sellers can show up on different platforms, including sites like Amazon, “all the time” Planos said, urging consumers to check out companies on the Better Business Bureau’s website. Like other scams, counterfeit products may increase around high spending periods.

Amid increasing pressure to tackle counterfeit products, Amazon has reported getting rid of millions of phony products in recent years. The company said it also blocked billions of bad listings from making it on to its site. In 2023, Amazon the company said more than 7 million counterfeit items were “identified, seized and appropriately disposed of.” The online retailer has also filed multiple lawsuits against fake review brokers.

Amazon notes customers can also report fake reviews and other scams on its website. If a shopper purchases a counterfeit item detected by the company, Amazon has said it will “proactively contact” the customer and provide a refund.

NEW YORK (AP) — Amazon is adding $1.4 billion to a fund it established three years ago for preserving or building more affordable housing in regions where the company has major corporate offices, CEO Andy Jassy announced Tuesday.

The Seattle-based company said the new sum would go on top of the $2.2 billion it had already invested to help create or preserve 21,000 affordable housing units in three areas: the Puget Sound in Washington state; Arlington, Virginia; and Nashville, Tennessee. When it launched its Housing Equity Fund in January 2021, Amazon said it aimed to fund 20,000 units over five years.

The additional money will go to the same regions with a goal of building or maintaining 14,000 more homes through grants and below-market-rate loans. To date, most of the funding went to non-profit and for-profit developers in the form of loans that allow Amazon to earn revenue through interest payments. Amazon said 80% of the units also benefited from government funding.

Like other tech companies that have made similar investments, Amazon launched its affordable housing fund following years of complaints that well-paid tech workers helped drive up housing costs in regions where their employers had set up major hubs.

Housing advocates in cities like Seattle and San Francisco have long blamed an influx of corporate workers for driving up the demand for housing and pricing out long-time residents.

Alice Shobe, the global director of Amazon Community Impact division, said 59% of the units Amazon supported so far have been preservation projects that make use of existing housing. They include donations and loans to nonprofits and local government agencies that can purchase buildings and stabilize rents, or otherwise maintain naturally occurring affordable housing.

In addition to maintaining housing stock, such projects prevent private developers from remodeling apartment buildings and putting the units on the market at much higher prices, Shobe said in an interview.

“We’ve made a big difference in both the amount and quality of affordable housing in these three communities,” she said.

Amazon targets its investments to provide housing for individuals with low-to-moderate incomes, which the company defines as those earning 30% to 80% of a given region’s “area median income.” The company has said it wants to focus on what it calls the “missing middle,” a demographic that includes professionals like nursing assistants and teachers who don’t qualify for government subsidies but still struggle to pay rent.

In September, Amazon made a $40 million investment to drive home ownership in the three regions. But the rest of the money so far has gone toward apartment buildings.

The company previously received some criticism in Northern Virginia for neglecting the housing needs of people on the lower end of the income spectrum. Projects designed for such individuals are likely to require more government subsidies and take longer to complete, said Derek Hyra, a professor at American University and a founding director of the Metropolitan Policy Center.

Shobe said Amazon has worked to maintain a “mixed portfolio” without losing its focus on the missing middle. Currently, the company says most of the units it has supported serve households earning less than 60% of the area median income, which goes up to $82,200 for a family of four in Washington state’s King County, where Seattle is located.

Companies like Amazon can help with the supply of affordable housing, but their money alone won’t do much to move the needle without significant investments from the federal government, according to Hyra.

“They have a good amount of money, but not enough money to solve the problem,” he said.

An internal Amazon memo that was leaked last year to the nonprofit labor organization Warehouse Worker Resource Center and posted online shows the company sees its philanthropy as a tool that can help it burnish its reputation.

According to a person familiar with the matter, the housing fund previously sat under Amazon’s government and corporate affairs division. However, it was moved to the company’s public relations arm when Jay Carney, Amazon’s former public policy and communications chief, left in 2022, the person said.

NEW YORK (AP) — Thousands of delivery drivers filed legal claims against Amazon on Tuesday, alleging the company’s classification of them as independent contractors instead of employees has led to unpaid wages and other financial losses.

Two law firms spearheading the action said about 15,860 Amazon Flex drivers have submitted arbitration claims with the American Arbitration Association, where 453 similar cases are already being litigated.

Amazon’s Flex program, which was founded in 2015, signs up drivers to deliver packages with their own cars and a special app.

The company pitches the work as a flexible, part-time opportunity that allows people to earn extra income during the hours they choose. Most drivers earn $18-25 per hour, according to Amazon, though how much they get paid can depend on other factors, such as their location and how long it takes to complete deliveries.

The arbitration claims submitted Tuesday were made by drivers in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, all of which have rules that limit the amount of control companies can exert over independent contractors. The claims, collected over a span of four years by attorneys Joseph Sellers and Steven Tindall, maintain the drivers should be classified as Amazon employees instead of independent contractors, based on current laws in the three states.

That change would allow Flex drivers to collect unpaid wages because Amazon only pays them for a pre-determined number of hours regardless of how long it takes to complete deliveries, according to the lawyers. It would also allow Flex drivers to receive overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours a week and get reimbursements for work-related expenses, such as gas costs and vehicle wear and tear.

Gas and other vehicle costs are a “huge expense to our clients,” Tindall said during an interview. He also said one client represented in the claims worked 7-day weeks making deliveries for Amazon during a holiday period and never was paid overtime.

In a prepared statement, Amazon spokesperson Branden Baribeau touted the benefits of the Flex program, saying it gives “individuals the opportunity to set their own schedule and be their own boss, while earning competitive pay.”

“We hear from most of the Amazon Flex delivery partners that they love the flexibility of the program, and we’re proud of the work they do on behalf of customers every day,” Baribeau said.

Tindall and Sellers say they have so far succeeded in seven of the eight arbitration claims against Amazon they took to trial. The drivers they represented in those cases were awarded an average of $9,000 in damages.

Amazon’s business model for its driving workforce – made up of independent contractors and third-party businesses that allow the company to avoid unionization – faces scrutiny and challenges from different corners.

A bipartisan group of more than 30 U.S. senators sent Amazon CEO Andy Jassy a letter last week asking for more information on the company’s relationship with the thousands of independent businesses that make millions of deliveries each day as part of Amazon’s Delivery Service Partners program.

In March, the Wisconsin Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that declared Flex drivers to be employees – a decision that would allow them to be part of the state’s unemployment insurance system and entitled to jobless pay if they are laid off.

The Teamsters union, which is seeking to organize Amazon’s drivers, also filed a complaint at the National Labor Relations Board last year challenging how the company classifies some of its drivers.

__

This version corrects the spelling of Amazon spokesperson Branden Baribeau’s first name.

Federal regulators have given Amazon key permission that will allow it to expand its drone delivery program, the company announced Thursday.

In a blog post published on its website, Seattle-based Amazon said that the Federal Aviation Administration has given its Prime Air delivery service the OK to operate drones “beyond visual line of sight,” removing a barrier that has prevented its drones from traveling longer distances.

With the approval, Amazon pilots can now operate drones remotely without seeing it with their own eyes. An FAA spokesperson said the approval applies to College Station, Texas, where the company launched drone deliveries in late 2022.

Amazon said its planning to immediately scale its operations in that city in an effort to reach customers in more densely populated areas. It says the approval from regulators also “lays the foundation” to scale its operations to more locations around the country.

Businesses have wanted simpler rules that could open neighborhood skies to new commercial applications of drones, but privacy advocates and some airplane and balloon pilots remain wary.

Amazon, which has sought this permission for years, said it received approval from regulators after developing a strategy that ensures its drones could detect and avoid obstacles in the air.

Furthermore, the company said it submitted other engineering information to the FAA and conducted flight demonstrations in front of federal inspectors. Those demonstrations were also done “in the presence of real planes, helicopters, and a hot air balloon to demonstrate how the drone safely navigated away from each of them,” Amazon said.

The FAA’s approval marks a key step for the company, which has had ambitions to deliver online orders through drones for more than a decade. During a TV interview in 2013, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said drones would be flying to customer’s homes within five years. However, the company’s progress was delayed amid regulatory setbacks.

Last month, Amazon said it would close a drone delivery site in Lockeford, California – one of only two in the nation – and open another one later this year in Tolleson, Arizona, a city located west of Phoenix.

By the end of the decade, the company has a goal of delivering 500 million packages by drone every year.

TikTok and its Chinese parent company filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new American law that would ban the popular video-sharing app in the U.S. unless it’s sold to an approved buyer, saying it unfairly singles out the platform and is an unprecedented attack on free speech.

In its lawsuit, ByteDance says the new law vaguely paints its ownership of TikTok as a national security threat in order to circumvent the First Amendment, despite no evidence that the company poses a threat. It also says the law is so “obviously unconstitutional” that its sponsors are instead portraying it as a way to regulate TikTok’s ownership.

“For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide,” ByteDance asserts in the lawsuit filed a Washington appeals court.

The law, which President Joe Biden signed as part of a larger foreign aid package, marks the first time the U.S. has singled out a social media company for a potential ban, which free speech advocates say is what would be expected from repressive regimes such as those in Iran and China.

The lawsuit is the latest turn in what’s shaping up to be a protracted legal fight over TikTok’s future in the United States — and one that could end up before the Supreme Court. If TikTok loses, it says it would be forced to shut down next year.

The law requires ByteDance to sell the platform to a U.S.-approved buyer within nine months. If a sale is already in progress, the company would get another three months to complete the deal. ByteDance has said it doesn’t plan to sell TikTok. But even if it wanted to divest, the company would need Beijing’s blessing. According to the lawsuit, the Chinese government has “made clear” that it wouldn’t allow ByteDance to include the algorithm that populates users’ feeds and has been the “key to the success of TikTok in the United States.”

TikTok and ByteDance contend that the new law leaves them with no choice but to shut down by next Jan. 19 because continuing to operate in the U.S. wouldn’t be commercially, technologically or legally possible. They also say it would be impossible for ByteDance to divest its U.S. TikTok platform as a separate entity from the rest of TikTok, which has 1 billion users worldwide — most of them outside of the United States. A U.S.-only TikTok would operate as an island that’s detached from the rest of the world, the lawsuit argues.

The suit also paints divestment as a technological impossibility, since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of software code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.

“Specifically, to comply with the law’s divestiture requirement, that code base would have to be moved to a large, alternative team of engineers — a team that does not exist and would have no understanding of the complex code necessary to run the platform,” the lawsuit says.

The companies argue that they should be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression. They are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the U.S. Constitution; an order enjoining Attorney General Merrick Garland from enforcing the Act and any further relief that the court may deem appropriate.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the suit Tuesday. And White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to engage on questions about why the president continues to use TikTok for his political activities, deferring to the campaign.

ByteDance will first likely ask a court to temporarily block the federal law from taking effect, said Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School who isn’t involved in the case. And the decision whether to grant such a preliminary injunction could decide the case, because its absence, ByteDance would need to sell TikTok before the broader case could be decided, he said.

Whether a court will grant such an injunction remains unclear to Hurwitz, largely because it requires balancing important free speech issues against the Biden administration’s claims of harm to national security. “I think the courts will be very deferential to Congress on these issues,” he said.

The fight over TikTok comes amid a broader U.S.-China rivalry, especially in areas such as advanced technologies and data security that are seen as essential to each country’s economic prowess and national security.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties, as well as administration and law enforcement officials, have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds. Some have also pointed to a Rutgers University study that maintains TikTok content was being amplified or underrepresented based on how it aligns with the Chinese government’s interests — a claim the company disputes.

Opponents of the law argue that Chinese authorities — or any nefarious parties — could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that rent or sell personal information. They say the U.S. government hasn’t provided public evidence that shows TikTok has shared U.S. user information with Chinese authorities or tinkered with its algorithm for China’s benefit.

“Data collection by apps has real consequences for all of our privacy,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “But banning one social media platform used by millions of people around the world is not the solution. Instead, we need Congress to pass laws that protect our privacy in the first place.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expects TikTok’s lawsuit to succeed.

“The First Amendment means the government can’t restrict Americans’ access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it — and no such reason exists here,” Jaffer said in a statement.

Although TikTok prevailed in earlier First Amendment challenges, it isn’t clear whether the current lawsuit will be as simple.

“The bipartisan nature of this federal law may make judges more likely to defer to a Congressional determination that the company poses a national security risk,” said Gautam Hans, a law professor and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell University. “Without public discussion of what exactly the risks are, however, it’s difficult to determine why the courts should validate such an unprecedented law.”

__

Associated Press writers David Hamilton and Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Saturday that would ban TikTok in the United States if the popular social media platform’s China-based owner doesn’t sell its stake within a year, but don’t expect the app to go away anytime soon.

The decision by House Republicans to include TikTok as part of a larger foreign aid package, a priority for President Joe Biden with broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel, fast-tracked the ban after an earlier version had stalled in the Senate. A standalone bill with a shorter, six-month selling deadline passed the House in March by an overwhelming bipartisan vote as both Democrats and Republicans voiced national security concerns about the app’s owner, the Chinese technology firm ByteDance Ltd.

The modified measure, passed by a 360-58 vote, now goes to the Senate after negotiations that lengthened the timeline for the company to sell to nine months, with a possible additional three months if a sale is in progress.

Legal challenges could extend that timeline even further. The company has indicated that it would likely go to court to try and block the law if it passes, arguing it would deprive the app’s millions of users of their First Amendment rights.

TikTok has lobbied hard against the legislation, pushing the app’s 170 million U.S. users — many of whom are young — to call Congress and voice opposition. But the ferocity of the pushback angered lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where there is broad concern about Chinese threats to the U.S. and where few members use the platform themselves.

“We will not stop fighting and advocating for you,” TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said in a video that was posted on the platform last month and directed toward the app’s users. “We will continue to do all we can, including exercising our legal rights, to protect this amazing platform that we have built with you.”

The bill’s quick path through Congress is extraordinary because it targets one company and because Congress has taken a hands-off approach to tech regulation for decades. Lawmakers had failed to act despite efforts to protect children online, safeguard users’ privacy and make companies more liable for content posted on their platforms, among other measures. But the TikTok ban reflects widespread concerns from lawmakers about China.

Members of both parties, along with intelligence officials, have worried that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over American user data or direct the company to suppress or boost TikTok content favorable to its interests. TikTok has denied assertions that it could be used as a tool of the Chinese government and has said it has not shared U.S. user data with Chinese authorities.

The U.S. government has not publicly provided evidence that shows TikTok shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government or tinkered with the company’s popular algorithm, which influences what Americans see.

The company has good reason to think a legal challenge could be successful, having seen some success in previous legal fights over its operations in the U.S.. In November, a federal judge blocked a Montana law that would ban TikTok use across the state after the company and five content creators who use the platform sued.

In 2020, federal courts blocked an executive order issued by then-President Donald Trump to ban TikTok after the company sued on the grounds that the order violated free speech and due process rights. His administration brokered a deal that would have had U.S. corporations Oracle and Walmart take a large stake in TikTok. The sale never went through for a number of reasons; one was China, which imposed stricter export controls on its technology providers.

Dozens of states and the federal government have put in place TikTok bans on government devices. Texas’ ban was challenged last year by The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which argued in a lawsuit that the policy was impeding academic freedom because it extended to public universities. In December, a federal judge ruled in favor of the state.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have backed the app. “Congress cannot take away the rights of over 170 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves, engage in political advocacy, and access information from around the world,” said Jenna Leventoff, a lawyer for the group.

Since mid-March, TikTok has spent $5 million on TV ads opposing the legislation, according to AdImpact, an advertising tracking firm. The ads have included a range of content creators, including a nun, extolling the positive impacts of the platform on their lives and arguing a ban would trample on the First Amendment. The company has also encouraged its users to contact Congress, and some lawmakers have received profanity-laced calls.

“It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is using the cover of important foreign and humanitarian assistance to once again jam through a ban bill that would trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion to the U.S. economy, annually,” said Alex Haurek, a spokesman for the company.

California Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, voted against the legislation. He said he thinks there could have been less restrictive ways to go after the company that wouldn’t result in a total ban or threaten free speech.

“I think it’s not going to be well received,” Khanna said. “It’s a sign of the Beltway being out of touch with where voters are.”

Nadya Okamoto, a content creator who has roughly 4 million followers on TikTok, said she has been having conversations with other creators who are experiencing “so much anger and anxiety” about the bill and how it’s going to impact their lives. The 26-year-old, whose company “August” sells menstrual products and is known for her advocacy around destigmatizing menstrual periods, makes most of her income from TikTok.

“This is going to have real repercussions,” she said.

___

Hadero reported from New York.

The company’s well-known technology lets customers pay for items without standing in line and sends them receipts afterwards. Amazon says it will now be replaced by smart carts that allow customers to skip the checkout line but also see their spending in real time.

While redesigning Fresh stores in the past year, Amazon spokesperson Carly Golden said the company heard from customers who enjoy skipping the checkout line but also wanted to view their receipts and savings as they shopped. Golden said the smart carts will give customers these benefits as well as the convenience of skipping the checkout line.

Amazon’s decision was first reported by The Information.

Seattle-based Amazon operates dozens of Fresh grocery stores across the country, most of which are in California, Illinois, Virginia and Washington state. The company also operates cashier-free convenience stores under the Amazon Go brand and owns Whole Foods, which it purchased in 2017 for $13.7 billion.

Despite predictions Amazon’s entry into the grocery sector would disrupt the market, the company has struggled to find what works.

In 2023, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy wrote in his annual letter to shareholders that Amazon was working to find the right formula that will allow it to have a larger impact on physical grocery. The company has shut down some Amazon Fresh and Go stores that weren’t living up to their promise and said early last year that it was pausing expansion on Fresh stores.

In November, the company reopened three Fresh stores in Los Angeles, California. Golden, the Amazon spokesperson, said the company is now focused on “selectively” opening new Fresh stores and remodeling the majority of its existing stores.

Just Walk Out technology will continue to be offered in Amazon Go stores and some smaller Amazon Fresh stores in the U.K., the company said. It will also continue offering the technology to third-party retailers.

The investigation is the latest battle in Washington for the social media company, which is already fighting against a federal bill that could ban the platform in the U.S. if it doesn’t break ties with its Beijing-based parent company, ByteDance.

In its investigation, the FTC has been looking into whether TikTok violated a portion of federal law that prohibits “unfair and deceptive” business practices by denying that individuals in China had access to U.S. user data, said the person, who is not authorized to discuss the investigation.

The agency also is scrutinizing the company over potential violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires kid-oriented apps and websites to get parents’ consent before collecting personal information of children under 13.

FTC spokesperson Nicole Drayton and TikTok declined to comment on the investigation, which was first reported by Politico.

The agency is nearing the conclusion of its investigation and could settle with TikTok in the coming weeks. But there’s not a deadline for an agreement, the person said.

If the FTC moves forward with a lawsuit instead, it would have to refer the case to the Justice Department, which would have 45 days to decide whether it wants to file a case on the FTC’s behalf, make changes or send it back to the agency to pursue on its own.

The news comes nearly two years after Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner and Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the committee, urged FTC chair Lina Khan to investigate TikTok, citing a report from Buzzfeed News that said ByteDance employees in China have repeatedly accessed data on U.S. TikTok users.

In late 2022, ByteDance said it fired four employees who accessed data on journalists from Buzzfeed News and The Financial Times while attempting to track down leaks of confidential materials about the company.

Legislation that could determine TikTok’s fate in the U.S. was approved in the House this month. But the bill has already run into roadblocks in the Senate, where there is little unanimity on how to best approach concerns over the social platform.

Lawmakers and intelligence officials have said they worry the platform could be used by the Chinese government to access U.S. user data or influence Americans through its popular algorithm. To date, the U.S. government hasn’t provided public evidence that this has happened.