The United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) – more commonly referred to as the TikTok Ban – and rejected TikTok’s arguments that the Act violated the First Amendment. While the ultimate fate of TikTok’s U.S. operations remains uncertain, the Supreme Court’s ruling has clear implications for digital content and marketing professionals and their selection of platform strategies going forward.

In a per curiam opinion published today, the Supreme Court recognized its long-standing tradition of exercising caution when deciding cases that involve “new technologies with transformative capabilities[,]” and resolved the narrow question of the tension between the First Amendment and the potential risks associated with foreign adversary control over data collection from U.S. citizens. The Act makes it unlawful for any entity to provide certain services to “distribute, maintain, or update” a “foreign adversary controlled application” in the United States, which explicitly meant TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd. The Supreme Court also acknowledged that the Act applies to any application that is both “(1) operated by a ‘covered company’ that is ’controlled by a foreign adversary,’ ” which is any country subject to the reporting requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 4872 – which currently includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – and “ ’(2) determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States,’ following a public notice and reporting process.”

Noting the “striking bipartisan support” for the Act, the Supreme Court’s narrow decision reflects a growing concern among policymakers and courts regarding the national security implications of foreign-owned technology companies operating in the United States. Beyond the immediate impact on TikTok and its users, this ruling has broader implications for the tech industry and the relationship between the U.S. government and foreign-owned companies. It signals a willingness by the Court to uphold government restrictions on technology companies, particularly those with ties to countries considered foreign adversaries when national security concerns can be credibly invoked. Since the Act identified TikTok by name, it is just the first company to be subject to the ban; however, the Act provides a broader framework that could apply to other platforms operating in the United States. Indeed, the popular trend of U.S. TikTok users migrating to another Chinese app, RedNote, could very well implicate the Act.

Marketing and advertising stakeholders should particularly take note of today’s Supreme Court decision because of a challenge built into the Act: While content creators and marketers benefit from being early adopters of emerging platforms, including international platforms, the Act comes into play when an application reaches a critical mass of more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. In other words, the Act adds another layer of complexity for content creators as they consider building their presence and following on new applications. Once an application becomes sufficiently popular, it could be shut down if it is deemed controlled by a foreign adversary. Likewise, marketing and advertising agencies should more carefully scrutinize the risk that a platform could be shut down under the Act, frustrating ongoing agreements or campaigns.