_{BROUGHT TO YOU BY}

Welcome to The Fineprint, the newsletter that hacks through the jargon jungle so you can walk the path cleared.

True or false… It is illegal to annoy someone inside of a library in the United Kingdom.
_{You can find the answer at the end!}

Now let’s take a look at the most interesting legal developments that took place over the past 7 days, including:

• We meet the wholesome TikTok creators suing Uncle Sam.

• An ex-lawyer heads back to the courtroom after losing his patience with Tesla.

• Netflix fights to protect fair use copyright laws for creators worldwide over a dispute from their iconic Tiger King series.

But first…

How do 500,000+ working professionals (like yourself) stay up to date with all of the latest AI tools and updates? They read AI Tool Report’s free daily newsletter!

Use the link below to subscribe with a single click and learn how to save time and earn more with AI in under 5 minutes.

SOCIAL MEDIA & ECOMMERCE

The Battle For TikTok: How a Rancher, a Baker, and a Skincare Guru Are Fighting the Feds!

Why we’re paying attention - Businesses are now spending over $10 billion on TikTok ads every year and over $20 billion has changed hands on TikTok’s Shop platform. But the future of this multi-billion dollar TikTok economy has been thrown into uncertainty after the U.S. passed its divestiture bill. As a potential ban looms closer, some are attempting to revoke the bill by questioning its legality - but will they succeed? Whatever happens will have massive implications for businesses and creators who sell online and the future of digital law.

An unlikely cadre of 8 TikTok creators banded together on Tuesday to file a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

The Creative 8 includes Brian Firebaugh, an ex-marine who makes agricultural videos from his ranch in Texas, Chloe Sexton, a momfluencer who uses TikTok to support her cookie business, and Paul Tran, who uses the platform to sell skincare products with his wife—bringing strong David and Goliath vibes to the unfolding TikTok saga.

Their lawsuit attacks the legality of the bill that was signed by President Biden back in April that targets TikTok.

The bill, which has now been dominating news cycles for months, forces TikTok to either:

1. turn themselves over to an American owner; or

2. get banned from App Stores.

But these creators argue that their livelihoods are threatened by the potential ban, and moreover, that the bill is illegal.

But does their case hold weight?

And could the bill still get overturned by the Supreme Court or elsewhere before any divesture or ban is enforced?

Let’s weigh up the strengths vs the weaknesses of their case.

👍 Strengths of their case

• Lack Of Evidence: Previous bans have been rejected on the basis that sufficient evidence of a national security threat is lacking. This time is no different.

• Anti-Free Speech: TikTok bans have been blocked before on the grounds that they breach free speech rights.

• Too Heavy Handed: The government must demonstrate that its approach is “the least restrictive means” to achieve their “compelling interest.” Some argue that the divesture ultimatum is overkill and that negotiations or other safety measures may be sufficient. E.g. TikTok have reportedly committed to an effective “killswitch” that would let the U.S. government shut the app down if any agreed upon conditions are violated. 

• Too Extensive: One line in the bill has triggered alarm bells. A foreign adversary includes anyone who is “subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity.” This is vague and broad language that some fear could be used in future as a political weapon. The U.S. government would seem to have the power to go after apps like X (due to Elon Musk’s association with China), Truth Social (due to Trump’s alleged association with Russia), and Telegram (due to the founder being Russian).

👎 Weaknesses of the case

• #notaban: The structure of the ultimatum puts some distance between this law and the proposed bans that have come before it. If TikTok agrees to divest then users and businesses can keep using the platform and free speech will never come into question. If TikTok refuses, then the government can argue that the company forced its hand.

• Multiple Potential Threats: The national security risk goes beyond propaganda and includes concerns on foreign espionage and data mining. While evidence of malice is scant, lawmakers argue that the potential threat alone warrants TikTok divestment.

• Not My Problem: Courts traditionally give broad deference to the executive branch in matters involving national security, and this bill has strong bipartisan support.

• Where’s The Proof?: Creators face the challenge of proving actual harm from the ban, beyond speculative future damages.

WHAT’S NEXT

The deadline for TikTok’s divestment is January 19th 2025.

TikTok’s parent company ByteDance also filed a lawsuit of their own earlier this month and they’ve requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals issue a ruling by December 6th.

Why?

Because they want plenty of time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Many legal obstacles lay ahead.

SNIPPETS

In 1981, DC and Marvel were jointly granted the trademark rights for the term “superhero.” But now their ownership of the mark is under siege by a London-based comic book artist known as Superbabies Ltd. Our legal vigilante says the term “superhero” has become too generic to be owned by one or two companies, and has demanded the US Patent and Trademark Office revoke the mark. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see your copyright fall into public use.

Two brothers, James and Anton Peraire-Bueno, pulled off one of the fastest heists in history when they stole $25 million in cryptocurrency in just 12 seconds. In a genius move, the MIT grads exploited an Ethereum vulnerability that allowed them to redirect pending transactions just before they were added to the blockchain. In a not-so-genius move, they wired money into accounts that the Internal Revenue Service traced back to them. Now they're facing up to 20 years behind bars for wire fraud and money laundering. 

Just as the IRS was closing in on the Peraire-Bueno brothers, Yicheng Zhang and Daren Li burst onto the crypto crime scene with a $73 million scam called "pig butchering." In this scheme, scammers build trust by delivering impressive returns on initial investments, enticing victims to keep investing more. Then, once the victims are heavily invested, the scammers ghost you and disappear with all your funds. 

Crypto fans are hopeful that these latest string of frauds won’t deter the SEC from approving Ethereum ETFs.

Since 2017, Tesla has offered a $15,000 upsell: Full Self Driving (FSD). The company promised that the ability for cars with FSD to drive from LA to NYC without human intervention was “just around the corner.” Well, fast forward to 2024, and many customers say FSD is still nowhere close to offering the kind of autonomous transportation that was marketed. So Thomas LoSavio, a retired Californian lawyer, lost patience and filed a lawsuit on behalf of all FSD buyers. And it seems LoSavio will have his day in court, as a judge ordered on Wednesday that the case will be heard before a Californian jury. 

In 2020, a cameraman who is known simply as “Sepi” sued Netflix for including some footage he filmed of a eulogy in the hit documentary series Tiger King. Netflix originally won the suit because the clip takes on new meaning when placed within the overall documentary, which makes it fair use. But Sepi successfully appealed on the grounds that the clip wasn’t edited or transformed enough. Now Netflix is counter-appealing, standing by their argument that using other people’s clips for the purposes of transformative education is fair use, and that creators across the world depend on this copyright precedent.

Apple is currently facing a lawsuit alleging it monopolizes the cloud storage market for its device users. The lawsuit—filed back in March by an LA resident who became disgruntled with her $2.99 iCloud subscription—argues that Apple limits third-party storage services by making iCloud the default option, skirting around competitors like Google Drive or Dropbox, and overcharges users. But Apple says they’re all for storage polygamy, insisting their pricing is competitive and that users are free to choose alternatives. That’s why they’re requesting that the Californian Court dismiss the lawsuit before it escalates further.

MEME

Was this email forwarded to you by someone awesome? You can sign up here.

The answer to today’s “did you know” is…

False. The law was repealed in 2005 so annoying British bookworms is now fair game.

Remember: always read the Fineprint!