Eight TikTok creators file suit against divestment or ban law

The lawsuit is similar to the company’s own challenge to the law in that it builds on First Amendment arguments, calls lawmakers’ concerns around the app speculative, and recalls that courts have blocked other methods of banning TikTok, including former President Donald Trump’s executive order and a Montana state law. But while the company’s lawsuit details the supposed impracticality of separating TikTok from its owner, ByteDance, the creators’ lawsuit focuses squarely on how their own speech could be affected if TikTok were to disappear.

The breeders – including the farmer Brian Firebaughbook reviewer Talia Cadeteand college football coach Timothy Martin – claim that TikTok is distinct from other social media platforms as a vehicle for expression, meaning there is no equivalent platform for creators to migrate to. They point to its recommendation algorithm and features like green screen or duet capability as elements that set it apart. “These characteristics – intrinsic to the medium and derived from the system that TikTok uses to select content for each user – give TikTok a distinct culture and identity,” the lawsuit says. “Creating videos on TikTok (‘TikToks’) is therefore its own form of expression, and content expressed through TikTok may convey a different meaning than content expressed elsewhere.”

The complaint points out that, although all creators participating in the action used other platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, the number of followers on these sites is significantly smaller. And, they say, they worry that a change in ownership could drastically alter the experience, just as Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) did for that platform. “Petitioners therefore have an interest not only in creating and accessing expressions through TikTok, but also in creating and accessing expressions curated using TikTok’s current editorial practices,” the complaint says.

The case is filed in the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the forced divestment law. The creators are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and block its enforcement.