[jsiegz]

That only applies if it happened before January 19th. That's why his 75 day EO just says they won't go after companies who violate the law, rather than say he's using the 90 day extension provided in the law (because it's too late to use that).

Some of the media isn't picking up on this nuance, but it's clear that's why it's a 75 day lack of enforcement, not a 90 day extension.

[llamaimperative]

Which obviously doesn’t prevent them from accruing massive fines for the next administration to enforce.

[jsiegz]

Yes, and if you read the EO, Section 3(c) states:

"This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

In practical terms, this means:

1. Private parties (like TikTok or its users) cannot sue to enforce this EO

2. If the government doesn't follow the EO, you can't take them to court over it

3. Companies can't use this EO as a legal defense if they're sued

For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection

This is important because while the EO tells app stores and other companies they won't be prosecuted, this disclaimer means they can't legally rely on that promise. If the EO is later found invalid or a new administration changes course, they could still face liability for actions taken during this period.

This creates a risky situation for companies trying to decide whether to comply with the law or follow the EO's guidance. A $5,000 fine per user of a 170M user platform means financial ruin for even Google and Apple if enforced. Larry Ellison (Oracle) might be willing to take that risk, and as a controlling founder he can do so without risk of being fired, but I don't think Tim Cook or Sundar Pichai are going to stick out their neck on this one.

[ivewonyoung]

> For example, if app stores keep hosting TikTok and get sued, they can't point to this EO as legal protection

Sued by who? Private parties can't sue other private parties over lack of enforcement, for example you cannot sue your neighbor for violating the federal ban on using pot.

Only the govt can prosecute or sue over certain laws. And judges would be certainly sympathetic because of this EO.

[bdangubic]

by the government… in 2026/28…

[ivewonyoung]

As I stated in my other comment, Biden refused to enforce the ban[1], so I really doubt democrats would enforce it 4 years later. It's not exactly a partisan issue, democrats don't hate Tiktok much more than republicans or something.

The real answer is that both sides don't want to take the blame from Tiktok users that rely on it for income, news or entertainment.

That's why the best outcome for them would be the sale of Tiktok to an American, and that's what the law was about. The issue was that Supreme Court ruled at the last minute if it was enforceable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tikt...

[llamaimperative]

Biden refused to enforce the ban for his last day in office. I don’t think that says anything about anyone’s general appetite to follow through.

Obviously the political calculations you mention are real, but also POTUS is legally obligated to faithfully enforce the laws. Many laws they can wriggle out of enforcing under prioritization, but given that this is just a matter of fining companies for unambiguously doing an illegal thing, I suspect that’s going to be a harder argument to make in court (and an especially hard one for Apple/Google et al to bet on them making successfully).

SCOTUS didn’t rule “at the last minute” it was enforceable. Last minute of what clock?

[polotics]

this creates the perfect incentive to ensure that in four years any way to keep the existential risk at bay is worth stopping for