This episode is brought to you by our sponsor WebPurify, an Intouch company. IntouchCX is a global leader in digital customer experience management, back office processing, trust and safety, and AI services.
When a school district sues social media companies claiming they can’t educate kids because Instagram filters exist, that district is announcing to the world that it has fundamentally failed at its core mission. That’s exactly what New York City just did with its latest lawsuit against Meta, TikTok, and other platforms.
The message is unmistakable: “We run the largest school system in America with nearly a million students, but we’re unable to teach children that filtered photos aren’t real or help them develop the critical thinking skills needed to navigate the modern world. So we’re suing someone else to fix our incompetence.”
This is what institutional failure looks like in 2025.
NYC first got taken in by this nonsense last year, as Mayor Adams said all social media was a health hazard and toxic waste. However, that lawsuit was rolled into the crazy, almost impossible to follow, consolidated version of that lawsuit in California that currently has over 2300 filings on the docket. So, apparently, NYC dropped that version, and has now elected to sue, sue again. With the same damn law firm, Keller Rohrback, that kicked off this trend and are the lawyers behind a big chunk of these lawsuits.
The actual complaint is bad, and everyone behind it should feel bad. It’s also 327 pages, and there’s no fucking way I’m going to waste my time going through all of it, watching my blood pressure rise as I have to keep yelling at my screen “that’s not how any of this works.”
The complaint leads with what should be Exhibit A for why NYC schools are failing their students—a detailed explanation of adolescent brain development that perfectly illustrates why education matters:
Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to developing harmful behaviors because their prefrontal cortex is not fully developed. Indeed, it is one of the last regions of the brain to mature. In the images below, the blue color depicts brain development.
Because the prefrontal cortex develops later than other areas of the brain, children and adolescents, as compared with adults, have less impulse control and less ability to evaluate risks, regulate emotions and regulate their responses to social rewards.
Stop right there. NYC just laid out the neurological case for why education exists. Kids have underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes? They struggle with impulse control, risk evaluation, and emotional regulation? THAT’S LITERALLY WHY WE HAVE SCHOOLS.
The entire premise of public education is that we can help children develop these exact cognitive and social skills. We teach them math because their brains can learn mathematical reasoning. We teach them history so they can evaluate evidence and understand cause and effect. We teach them literature so they can develop empathy and critical thinking.
But apparently, when it comes to digital literacy—arguably one of the most important skills for navigating modern life—NYC throws up its hands and sues instead of teaches.
This lawsuit is a 327-page confession of educational malpractice.
The crux of the lawsuit is, effectively, “kids like social media, and teachers just can’t compete with that shit.”
In short, children find it particularly difficult to exercise the self-control required to regulate their use of Defendants’ platforms, given the stimuli and rewards embedded in those platforms, and as a foreseeable and probable consequence of Defendants’ design choices tend to engage in addictive and compulsive use. Defendants engaged in this conduct even though they knew or should have known that their design choices would have a detrimental effect on youth, including those in NYC Plaintiffs’ community, leading to serious problems in schools and the community.
By this logic, basically any products that children like are somehow a public nuisance.
This lawsuit is embarrassing to the lawyers who brought it and to the NYC school system.
Take the complaint’s hysterical reaction to Instagram filters, which perfectly captures the educational opportunity NYC is missing:
Defendants’ image-altering filters cause mental health harms in multiple ways. First, because of the popularity of these editing tools, many of the images teenagers see have been edited by filters, and it can be difficult for teenagers to remain cognizant of the use of filters. This creates a false reality wherein all other users on the platforms appear better looking than they actually are, often in an artificial way. As children and teens compare their actual appearances to the edited appearances of themselves and others online, their perception of their own physical features grows increasingly negative. Second, Defendants’ platforms tend to reward edited photos, through an increase in interaction and positive responses, causing young users to prefer the way they look using filters. Many young users believe they are only attractive when their images are edited, not as they appear naturally. Third, the specific changes filters make to individuals’ appearances can cause negative obsession or self-hatred surrounding particular aspects of their appearance. The filters alter specific facial features such as eyes, lips, jaw, face shape, and face slimness—features that often require medical intervention to alter in real life
Read that again. The complaint admits that “it can be difficult for teenagers to remain cognizant of the use of filters” and that kids struggle to distinguish between edited and authentic images.
That’s not a legal problem. That’s a curriculum problem.
A competent school system would read that paragraph and immediately start developing age-appropriate digital literacy programs. Media literacy classes. Critical thinking exercises about online authenticity. Discussions about self-image and social comparison that have been relevant since long before Instagram existed.
Instead, NYC read that paragraph and decided the solution is to sue the companies rather than teach the kids.
This is educational malpractice masquerading as child protection. If you run a million-student school system and your response to kids struggling with digital literacy is litigation rather than education, you should resign and let someone competent take over.
They’re also getting sued for… not providing certain features, like age verification. Even though, as we keep pointing out, age verification is (1) likely unconstitutional outside of the narrow realm of pornographic content, and (2) a privacy and security nightmare for kids.
The broader tragedy here extends beyond one terrible lawsuit. NYC is participating in a nationwide trend of school districts abandoning their educational mission in favor of legal buck-passing. These districts, often working with the same handful of contingency-fee law firms, have decided it’s easier to blame social media companies than to do the hard work of preparing students for digital citizenship.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what schools are supposed to do. We don’t shut down the world to protect children from it—we prepare children to navigate the world as it exists. That means teaching them to think critically about online content, understand privacy and security, develop healthy relationships with technology, and build the cognitive skills to resist manipulation.
Every generation gets a moral panic or two, and apparently “social media is destroying kids’ brains” is our version of moral panics of years past. We’ve seen this movie before: the waltz would corrupt young women’s morals, chess would stop kids from going outdoors, novels would rot their brains on useless fiction, bicycles would cause moral decay, radio would destroy family conversation, pinball machines would turn kids into delinquents, television would make them violent, comic books would corrupt their minds, and Dungeons & Dragons would lead them to Satan worship.
As society calmed down, eventually, after each of those, we now look back on those moral panics as silly, hysterical overreactions. You would hope that a modern education system would take note that they have an opportunity to use these new forms of media as a learning opportunity.
But faced with social media, America’s school districts have largely given up on education and embraced litigation. That should terrify every parent more than any Instagram filter ever could.
The real scandal isn’t that social media exists. It’s that our schools have become so risk-averse and educationally bankrupt that they’ve forgotten their core purpose: preparing young people to be thoughtful, capable adults in the world they’ll actually inherit.
TikTok’s new owners will include Rupert Murdoch (responsible for creating Fox News, the most effective mass media right wing propaganda platform ever) and Trump bestie Larry Ellison, who is in the process of turning CBS News into basically the same thing via his nepo baby son and Bari Weiss.
Normally you’d want to be a little subtle about the plan to turn TikTok into a pro-Trump and pro-Netanyahu propaganda machine to avoid scaring off customers, but that’s not Trump’s style. So last week he basically just blurted out the whole plan, then insisted he was just “joking”:
“Trump signed an executive order to “save” TikTok, while supposedly joking that he’d like to censor influencers by tweaking the algorithm so that content is “100 percent MAGA.”
“Everyone is going to be treated fairly,” the president added—seemingly covering his tracks as critics warn that TikTok under US ownership could soon carry a right-wing bias, perhaps going the way of Twitter after Elon Musk took over and rebranded it as X.”
Yes, “perhaps.”
From Twitter and the Washington Post to CBS News, the right wing billionaire tendency to buy up major media properties and convert them into right wing propaganda and bullshit machines has not been subtle. Yet, as the framing of this Ars piece makes clear, the press still seems somewhat confused as to whether TikTok will be any sort of reliable source of information (spoiler: it won’t) under far right wing billionaire ownership.
TikTok under Bytedance ownership certainly raised privacy, propaganda, and national security concerns. But under Bytedance the platform at least tried to behave so it could continue operating in the U.S. With Trump having dismantled all our privacy, NatSec, and fraud regulators, the new U.S. ownership of TikTok will see arguably fewer regulatory constraints on their worst impulses than ever.
Murdoch clearly wants a modern media extension of his existing Fox News empire given his core audience is dying off. Ellison, a staunch supporter of Netanyahu and his industrialized mass murder of children, clearly wants to leverage TikTok as a new media extension for whatever fresh hell he and Bari Weiss are building over at CBS. I’d expect ample authoritarian apologia.
To be clear the deal hasn’t been fully finalized yet. It’s still not clear if the deal will meet the legal requirements of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, especially given there seems to be some ongoing debate over who’ll exactly own the underlying algorithm. There will likely be some opportunities for activists and lawyers to throw sand in the gears.
But make no mistake: if this deal goes through TikTok will absolutely be headed the way of Twitter under Elon Musk. They’ll likely try to leave things much the same for a 6-12 months to pretend that’s not going to be the case, but I suspect that, ultimately, its use for right wing propaganda will be obvious.
Creating an internet full of wall-to-wall racist and corporatist right wing agitprop was always the end game of MAGA’s bogus “Conservative censorship” and “we support antitrust reform now” claims, it was never remotely subtle, and you can’t say you weren’t warned, repeatedly.
You’d like to think that the conversion of TikTok into a far right wing safe space will cause a mass exodus of ethical people off of the platform, but as we’ve seen with Twitter (especially when it comes to journalists’ continued use of a website owned by an overt white supremacist) that’s clearly not really something you can truly rely on.
You’d also like to think that the hijacking of TikTok will create the opportunity for innovators to create a better, more ethical short-form video platform not owned by assholes actively cheering on the destruction of foundational democracy. Here too, time will tell.
Their goal is obvious but as some are quick to point out: their success is far from guaranteed. Remember what happened with Rupert Murdoch and MySpace? AT&T’s attempted domination of video? These sorts of domination plays, especially in mass modern media, never quite go the way rich brunchlords planned, and it’s not like Oracle executives have any sort of serious experience with consumer-facing product success, much less any understanding of modern media.
That said, you’d need to define “success.” The billionaire right wing architects of this new modern era right wing propaganda bullhorn (that may soon be comprised of Fox, CNN, Sinclair, TikTok, Twitter, and countless other media properties) have no limit of money to burn on profit-losing propaganda ventures in a country that just took a hatchet to any remaining financial or consumer protection regulators.
They may never have the competency to actually execute, but given the already extremely shaky status of journalism, the media, and informed consensus, I think emphatic alarmism remains the right response to the grand, unsubtle mass media plans of our shittiest billionaires.
Donald Trump has successfully used xenophobia and fake concerns about propaganda and national security to get what he’s long wanted: TikTok (and its fat ad revenues) are poised to be sold off to his right wing billionaire buddies and, inevitably, slowly converted into a right wing propaganda safe space.
Andreessen and Ellison are, to be clear, technofascists who don’t believe in democracy, regulatory oversight, or basic privacy protections for consumers. The remaining 20 percent would remain in the hands of Chinese ownership and the Chinese government, which still has to finalize the deal. This is not, contrary to what you’ll read in the pages of WAPO or CNN, a net improvement.
Oh, and Donald Trump will get to appoint a board member. Remember when Republicans were against government interference in private businesses?
Trump still didn’t truly get what he really wanted: reporting in the Financial Times suggests that China will still technically own and control the algorithm used to power TikTok, something Trump had previously said was essential to any deal. Early reporting by the Wall Street Journal also indicates that existing TikTok users will have to migrate to a new app.
“Come join an app majority owned by Donald Trump’s unhinged right wing billionaire friends where there’s no competent hate speech and right wing propaganda safeguards” is going to be a tricky selling point that could ultimately throw sand in the gears, and create the potential for another (hopefully better?) company to disrupt their plans.
Now is the time for Silicon Valley to engage in that boundless innovation we’ve all heard so much about.
It WasNever About Privacy And National Security
I’ve noted more times than I can count that the push to ban TikTok was never really about protecting American privacy. If that were true, we would pass a real privacy law and craft serious penalties for companies and executives that play fast and loose with sensitive American data, be it TikTok or the myriad of super dodgy apps, telecoms, and hardware vendors monetizing your phone usage.
It was never really about propaganda. If that were true, we’d take aim at the extremely well funded authoritarian propaganda machine and engage in content moderation of race-baiting political propaganda that’s filling the brains of young American men with pudding and hate. We’d push for education media literacy reforms common in countries like Finland.
TikTok’s Chinese ownership did pose some very real legitimate security, privacy, and NatSec concerns, but the MAGA folks “fixing” the problem were never competent or good faith actors, and the push to ban hijack TikTok was always about ego, money, and information control.
American authoritarians are following the same playbook we’ve seen in countries like Hungary, where new and old media and journalism is either destroyed or hijacked in service to authoritarian leadership. It’s happening here, now, and the very least ethical people can do is recognize it and put up a fight.
One afternoon in mid-September, a group of middle school girls in rural East Tennessee decided to film a TikTok video while waiting to begin cheerleading practice.
In the 45-second video posted later that day, one girl enters the classroom holding a cellphone. “Put your hands up,” she says, while a classmate flickers the lights on and off. As the camera pans across the classroom, several girls dramatically fall back on a desk or the floor and lie motionless, pretending they were killed.
When another student enters and surveys the bodies on the ground in poorly feigned shock, few manage to suppress their giggles. Throughout the video, which ProPublica obtained, a line of text reads: “To be continued……”
Penny Jackson’s 11-year-old granddaughter was one of the South Greene Middle School cheerleaders who played dead. She said the co-captains told her what to do and she did it, unaware of how it would be used. The next day, she was horrified when the police came to school to question her and her teammates.
By the end of the day, the Greene County Sheriff’s Department charged her and 15 other middle school cheerleaders with disorderly conduct for making and posting the video. Standing outside the school’s brick facade, Lt. Teddy Lawing said in a press conference that the girls had to be “held accountable through the court system” to show that “this type of activity is not warranted.” The sheriff’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the incident.
Widespread fear of school shootings is colliding with algorithms that accelerate the spread of the most outrageous messages to cause chaos across the country. Social videos, memes and retweets are becoming fodder for criminal charges in an era of heightened responses to student threats. Authorities say harsh punishment is crucial to deter students from making threatening posts that multiply rapidly and obscure their original source.
In many cases, especially in Tennessee, police are charging students for jokes and misinterpretations, drawing criticism from families and school violence prevention experts who believe a measured approach is more appropriate. Students are learning the hard way that they can’t control where their social media messages travel. In central Tennessee last fall, a 16-year-old privately shared a video he created using artificial intelligence, and a friend forwarded it to others on Snapchat. The 16-year-old was expelled and charged with threatening mass violence, even though his school acknowledged the video was intended as a private joke.
Other students have been charged with felonies for resharing posts they didn’t create. As ProPublica wrote in May, a 12-year-old in Nashville was arrested and expelled this year for sharing a screenshot of threatening texts on Instagram. He told school officials he was attempting to warn others and wanted to “feel heroic.”
In Greene County, the cheerleaders’ video sent waves through the small rural community, especially since it was posted several days after the fatal Apalachee High School shooting one state away. The Georgia incident had spawned thousands of false threats looping through social media feeds across the country. Lawing told ProPublica and WPLN at the time that his officers had fielded about a dozen social media threats within a week and struggled to investigate them. “We couldn’t really track back to any particular person,” he said.
But the cheerleaders’ video, with their faces clearly visible, was easy to trace.
Jackson understands that the video was in “very poor taste,” but she believes the police overreacted and traumatized her granddaughter in the process. “I think they blew it completely out of the water,” she said. “To me, it wasn’t serious enough to do that, to go to court.”
That perspective is shared by Makenzie Perkins, the threat assessment supervisor of Collierville Schools, outside of Memphis. She is helping her school district chart a different path in managing alleged social media threats. Perkins has sought specific training on how to sort out credible threats online from thoughtless reposts, allowing her to focus on students who pose real danger instead of punishing everyone.
The charges in Greene County, she said, did not serve a real purpose and indicate a lack of understanding about how to handle these incidents. “You’re never going to suspend, expel or charge your way out of targeted mass violence,” she said. “Did those charges make that school safer? No.”
When 16-year-old D.C. saw an advertisement for an AI video app last October, he eagerly downloaded it and began roasting his friends. In one video he created, his friend stood in the Lincoln County High School cafeteria, his mouth and eyes moving unnaturally as he threatened to shoot up the school and bring a bomb in his backpack. (We are using D.C.’s initials and his dad’s middle name to protect their privacy, because D.C. is a minor.)
D.C. sent it to a private Snapchat group of about 10 friends, hoping they would find it hilarious. After all, they had all teased this friend about his dark clothes and quiet nature. But the friend did not think it was funny. That evening, D.C. showed the video to his dad, Alan, who immediately made him delete it as well as the app. “I explained how it could be misinterpreted, how inappropriate it was in today’s climate,” Alan recalled to ProPublica.
It was too late. One student in the chat had already copied D.C.’s video and sent it to other students on Snapchat, where it began to spread, severed from its initial context.
That evening, a parent reported the video to school officials, who called in local police to do an investigation. D.C. begged his dad to take him to the police station that night, worried the friend in the video would get in trouble — but Alan thought it could wait until morning.
The next day, D.C. rushed to school administrators to explain and apologize. According to Alan, administrators told D.C. they “understood it was a dumb mistake,” uncharacteristic for the straight-A student with no history of disciplinary issues. In a press release, Lincoln County High School said administrators were “made aware of a prank threat that was intended as a joke between friends.”
But later that day, D.C. was expelled from school for a year and charged with a felony for making a threat of mass violence. As an explanation, the sheriff’s deputy wrote in the affidavit, “Above student did create and distribute a video on social media threatening to shoot the school and bring a bomb.”
During a subsequent hearing where D.C. appealed his school expulsion, Lincoln County Schools administrators described their initial panic when seeing the video. Alan shared an audio recording of the hearing with ProPublica. Officials didn’t know that the video was generated by AI until the school counselor saw a small logo in the corner. “Everybody was on pins and needles,” the counselor said at the hearing. “What are we going to do to protect the kids or keep everybody calm the next day if it gets out?” The school district declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions about how officials handled the incident, even though Alan signed a privacy waiver giving them permission to do so.
Alan watched D.C. wither after his expulsion: His girlfriend broke up with him, and some of his friends began to avoid him. D.C. lay awake at night looking through text messages he sent years ago, terrified someone decades later would find something that could ruin his life. “If they are punishing him for creating the image, when does his liability expire?” Alan wondered. “If it’s shared again a year from now, will he be expelled again?”
Alan, a teacher in the school district, coped by voraciously reading court cases and news articles that could shed light on what was happening to his son. He stumbled on a case hundreds of miles north in Pennsylvania, the facts of which were eerily similar to D.C.’s.
In April 2018, two kids, J.S. and his friend, messaged back and forth mocking another student by suggesting he looked like a school shooter. (The court record uses J.S. instead of his full name to protect the student’s anonymity.) J.S. created two memes and sent them to his friend in a private Snapchat conversation. His friend shared the memes publicly on Snapchat, where they were seen by 20 to 40 other students. School administrators permanently expelled J.S., so he and his parents sued the school.
In 2021, after a series of appeals, Pennsylvania’s highest court ruled in J.S.’s favor. While the memes were “mean-spirited, sophomoric, inartful, misguided, and crude,” the state Supreme Court justices wrote in their opinion, they were “plainly not intended to threaten Student One, Student Two, or any other person.”
The justices also shared their sympathy with the challenges schools faced in providing a “safe and quality educational experience” in the modern age. “We recognize that this charge is compounded by technological developments such as social media, which transcend the geographic boundaries of the school. It is a thankless task for which we are all indebted.”
After multiple disciplinary appeals, D.C.’s school upheld the decision to keep him out of school for a year. His parents found a private school that agreed to let him enroll, and he slowly emerged from his depression to continue his straight-A streak there. His charge in court was dismissed in December after he wrote a 500-word essay for the judge on the dangers of social media, according to Alan.
Thinking back on the video months later, D.C. explained that jokes about school violence are common among his classmates. “We try to make fun of it so that it doesn’t seem as serious or like it could really happen,” he said. “It’s just so widespread that we’re all desensitized to it.”
He wonders if letting him back to school would have been more effective in deterring future hoax threats. “I could have gone back to school and said, ‘You know, we can’t make jokes like that because you can get in big trouble for it,’” he said. “I just disappeared for everyone at that school.”
When a school district came across an alarming post on Snapchat in 2023, officials reached out to Safer Schools Together, an organization that helps educators handle school threats. In the post, a pistol flanked by two assault rifles lay on a rumpled white bedsheet. The text overlaid on the photo read, “I’m shooting up central I’m tired of getting picked on everyone is dying tomorrow.”
Steven MacDonald, training manager and development director for Safer Schools Together, recounted this story in a virtual tutorial posted last year on using online tools to trace and manage social media threats. He asked the school officials watching his tutorial what they would do next. “How do we figure out if this is really our student’s bedroom?”
According to MacDonald, it took his organization’s staff only a minute to put the text in quotation marks and run it through Google. A single local news article popped up showing that two kids had been arrested for sharing this exact Snapchat post in Columbia, Tennessee — far from the original district.
“We were able to reach out and respond and say, ‘You know what, this is not targeting your district,’” MacDonald said. Administrators were reassured there was a low likelihood of immediate violence, and they could focus on finding out who was recirculating the old threat and why.
In the training video, MacDonald reviewed skills that, until recently, have been more relevant to police investigators than school principals: How to reverse image search photos of guns to determine whether a post contains a stock image. How to use Snapchat to find contact names for unknown phone numbers. How to analyze the language in the social media posts of a high-risk student.
“We know that why you’re here is because of the increase and the sheer volume of these threats that you may have seen circulated, the non-credible threats that might have even ended up in your districts,” he said. Between last April and this April, Safer Schools Together identified drastic increases in “threat related behavior” and graphic or derogatory social media posts.
Back in the Memphis suburbs, Perkins and other Collierville Schools administrators have attended multiple digital threat assessment training sessions hosted by Safer Schools Together. “I’ve had to learn a lot more apps and social media than I ever thought,” Perkins said.
The knowledge, she said, came in handy during one recent incident in her district. Local police called the district to report that a student had called 911 and reported an Instagram threat targeting a particular school. They sent Perkins a photo of the Instagram profile and username. She began using open source websites to scour the internet for other appearances of the picture and username. She also used a website that allows people to view Instagram stories without alerting the user to gather more information.
With the help of police, Perkins and her team identified that the post was created by someone at the same IP address as the student who had reported the threat. The girl, who was in elementary school, confessed to police that she had done it.
The next day, Perkins and her team interviewed the student, her parents and teachers to understand her motive and goal. “It ended up that there had been some recent viral social media threats going around,” Perkins said. “This individual recognized that it drew in a lot of attention.”
Instead of expelling the girl, school administrators worked with her parents to develop a plan to manage her behavior. They came up with ideas for the girl to receive positive attention while stressing to her family that she had exhibited “extreme behavior” that signaled a need for intensive help. By the end of the day, they had tamped down concerns about immediate violence and created a plan of action.
In many other districts, Perkins said, the girl might have been arrested and expelled for a year without any support — which does not help move students away from the path of violence. “A lot of districts across our state haven’t been trained,” she said. “They’re doing this without guidance.”
Watching the cheerleaders’ TikTok video, it would be easy to miss Allison Bolinger, then the 19-year-old assistant coach. The camera quickly flashes across her standing and smiling in the corner of the room watching the pretend-dead girls.
Bolinger said she and the head coach had been next door planning future rehearsals. Bolinger entered the room soon after the students began filming and “didn’t think anything of it.” Cheerleading practice went forward as usual that afternoon. The next day, she got a call from her dad: The cheerleaders were suspended from school, and Bolinger would have to answer questions from the police.
“I didn’t even know the TikTok was posted. I hadn’t seen it,” she said. “By the time I went to go look for it, it was already taken down.” Bolinger said she ended up losing her job as a result of the incident. She heard whispers around the small community that she was responsible for allowing them to create the video.
Bolinger said she didn’t realize the video was related to school shootings when she was in the room. She often wishes she had asked them at the time to explain the video they were making. “I have beat myself up about that so many times,” she said. “Then again, they’re also children. If they don’t make it here, they’ll probably make it at home.”
Jackson, the grandmother of the 11-year-old in the video, blames Bolinger for not stopping the middle schoolers and faults the police for overreacting. She said all the students, whether or not their families hired a lawyer, got the same punishment in court: three months of probation for a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, which could be extended if their grades dropped or they got in trouble again. Each family had to pay more than $100 in court costs, Jackson said, a significant amount for some.
Jackson’s granddaughter successfully completed probation, which also involved writing and submitting a letter of apology to the judge. She was too scared about getting in trouble again to continue on the cheerleading team for the rest of the school year.
Jackson thinks that officials’ outsize response to the video made everything worse. “They shouldn’t even have done nothing until they investigated it, instead of making them out to be terrorists and traumatizing these girls,” she said.
I wasn’t wrong when I wrote that Apple, Google, Akamai, and others faced tremendous liability risk if they continued to provide any of their hosting services to TikTok. Of course, not because it should be illegal – the operative law is incredibly unconstitutional, despite the trite reasoning by the Supreme Court finding it otherwise. But because, as long as it remains an enforceable law, it includes terms that make providing these services to TikTok punishable by exorbitant sanctions that can potentially run into the billions of dollars.
And yet, here all these companies are, nevertheless providing these services, as if there were no law telling them they can’t. So what happened?
Apparently, Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi are what happened.
Some of this we knew already. The TikTok ban was a ticking time bomb for whomever won the 2024 Presidential Election because from almost the very first moment their term began the law’s teeth would be fully sharpened, effectively banning TikTok in America and penalizing anyone who helped it provide service anyway. As a now fully-ripe law the President would have no choice but to enforce it, consistent with his constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” no matter how crummy, stupid, or illiberal those laws may be. Sometimes some presidents have refused to enforce laws that they consider unconstitutional and thus inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution, but taking that position looks extremely dubious when the law in question has already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court (no matter how speciously). And in no circumstance does the President have the constitutional authority to change any laws duly passed by Congress, which has exclusive legislative authority in our constitutional system—none belongs to the President. The President can neither pass legislation nor modify legislation that has been passed. Thus the President’s discretion with respect to this law is limited, except possibly in two potential ways, neither of which allow what has happened here.
One way is by the terms of the law itself, which allowed the President to provide a short reprieve to TikTok before it got fully banned, but only if certain conditions were met, namely that negotiations for its imminent sale were significantly underway. Trump has so far now issued several executive orders purporting to give TikTok and its third party enablers a stay of execution, yet never permissibly because those statutory conditions that would have entitled him to provide them were never met. These “extensions” that he granted were therefore an abuse of an imaginary power Trump does not actually have, either by the terms of the law itself or any other constitutional authority. They are thus a legal nullity no one can safely rely on.
Then there is the other way, which is through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The Constitution itself does not actually authorize the President to pick and choose which laws will get enforced—in fact, per its plain language, his job is to enforce all of them—but the realities of law enforcement mean that these sorts of choices effectively happen all the time, at least to some extent. Prosecutors are always deciding whom to charge and how because it can’t realistically be “everyone for everything” nor would we want it to be. Still, there have been other rules and norms that have tried to ensure that federal prosecutions would not be arbitrary and unjust, including the long-recognized separation between the President and the Department of Justice, which helped to ensure that prosecutions would be consistent with the rule of law and not vulnerable to the President’s political whims.
Yet here we are, now learning that, at Trump’s behest, AG Bondi has exercised this supposed prosecutorial discretion by sending letters to these third party companies promising not to enforce the law against them. For example, here is some language from one letter to Apple, with the promise phrased as a(n extremely ludicrous if not also illiterate) determination that there is no liability that could be prosecuted:
Based on the Attorney General’s review of the facts and circumstances, Apple Inc. has committed no violation of the Act and Apple Inc. has incurred no liability under the Act during the Covered Period or the Extended Covered Period. Apple Inc. may continue to provide services to TikTok as contemplated by these Executive Orders without violating the Act, and without incurring any legal liability.
The bigger problem, however, is that the letters do more than tell the companies that Trump will not prosecute them, probably because that promise alone would not be enough to ameliorate the legal risk the companies face by providing TikTok services in violation of the statutory language telling them not to. After all, at five years the statute of limitations—or the time period after which a violation of the law could still be prosecuted—extends beyond a single presidency term. If there’s a new president, with a new Attorney General, violations happening now could still be prosecuted then.
Perhaps realizing that this promise not to prosecute would probably not be enough to induce the platforms to continue to provide their services, Bondi, on behalf of Trump, attempted to sweeten the pot, by offering an irrevocable guarantee that no one could ever prosecute any of the third party companies for continuing to provide services to TikTok (despite any pesky statutory language to the contrary):
The Department of Justice is also irrevocably relinquishing any claims the United States might have had against Apple Inc. for the conduct proscribed in the Act during the Covered Period and Extended Covered Period, with respect to TikTok and the larger family of ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok, Inc. applications covered under the Act. This is derived from the Attorney General’s plenary authority over all litigation, civil and criminal, to which the United States, its agencies, or departments, are parties, as well as the Attorney General’s authority to enter settlements limiting the future exercise of executive branch discretion.
It appears that this “no backsies forever!” promise has done the trick, as everyone’s back in business, but the question is why, because this sort of promise is not a thing that she, or anyone else, can provide under American Constitutional law. What she calls a “plenary power” (aka a thing she thinks her job entitles were to do) is what Steve Vladeck calls a “dispensing power,” which is most definitely something that she does not get to exercise, and nor does Trump. As he explains, this sort of law-by-regal-decree was a creature of the English monarchy before America’s founding, which both pro-democracy forces in England eventually did away with and America’s founders refused to allow from the start.
The “dispensing” power claimed by pre-18th-century English kings was the power to decide, on an ad hoc basis, which laws could and should be set aside in individual cases—to exempt the King’s favorites not just from the retrospective operation of criminal laws (for which after-the-fact pardons could have the same effect), but from the retrospective and prospective application of civil laws, as well. The idea was that the King could literally “dispense” with application of whichever laws he wanted, for whatever reasons he wanted, in whatever cases he wanted.
Here in America, our Constitution provides no room for such executive power. Laws emanate from the people as expressed through Congress, and the President of the United States has no power to mess with that democratic authority. That Trump has, via Bondi, is yet another unconstitutional power grab by Trump and thus yet another legal nullity.
Which means that the third party companies violating the law by providing services are still in just as much legal jeopardy as they would have been to provide the services without the Bondi letter, which is devoid of legal effect. These companies are openly violating the law, and not only do they have to still worry about enforcement from the next president, but given that none of Trump’s promises are worth anything, they are still in jeopardy from this one too! In fact, now that there is further news that Trump is currently unhappy with TikTok and now a lot more keen to see it banned, it looks like a lot of jeopardy.
Of course, perhaps in this new era of apparently tolerable corruption by the Chief Executive of the United States the third party companies made the pragmatic decision that they might be tempting more trouble from the Trump Administration if they did not go back to providing the services he at least did once seem to want them to provide, as suggested by the letters. Perhaps they decided it would be better to go along to get along, even though if they were to lose the bet and find themselves at the receiving end of an enforcement action, in any administration, it would likely result in an enormous financial liability.
On the other hand, should that day come, the third party companies would still have some cards to play to try to fight back. One might be based on reliance harms, in light of Bondi’s promises, although given how facially void they are a court could fairly ask how the companies could have been so dumb to rely on them. Courts are usually only sympathetic to reliance harms that are reasonable and having unlawful activities blessed by an unconstitutional authority is arguably not particularly reasonable. On the other hand, since we are so far through the looking glass with unlawful unconstitutional and corrupt executive behavior, the companies might also be able to raise some sort of defense based on duress. Perhaps plausibly even, but it is a rather bet-the-company decision to presume it will work.
And the better argument is likely the one suggested in the earlier post, which has so far, disappointingly, never been raised in court at all: that this law is still massively unconstitutional, particularly as applied to them, the third party companies. So far the Supreme Court has only said it is perfectly fine for Congress to ban a platform, but it has not said that it is equally fine to ban any other platforms from providing service to it. And given lots of other precedent, including the pretty fresh Moody v. NetChoice decision, which acknowledged their own First Amendment rights to provide their facilitating services, it is not clear that it would find it ok.
But these companies have now bet billions that the Court won’t bless the law with respect to them. Even though they would in the dubious position, should that argument eventually having to be made, of never having chosen to challenge the law and instead only openly defied it.
In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Ben is joined by guest host Mercy Mutemi, lawyer and managing partner of Nzili & Sumbi Advocates. Together, they cover:
