As TikTok’s future in the US hangs in the balance, influencers and brands are left wondering how a potential ban could impact their posting contracts. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Jamie Lincenberg dive into the potential legal challenges and share insights on how brands can stay ahead of the curve in this ever-changing landscape.

Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.

Show Notes:

Scott:

On January 19, 2025, TikTok went dark, forced to cease operations in the US as a result of a federal law that bans the app in the US unless TikTok divest itself from its Chinese parent company. Now, as we record this podcast today on the 21st, TikTok is back up. It has a 75-day stay granted by current President Trump. While TikTok sorts out whether it’s going to sell itself or some other deal structure that will allow it to continue to operate in the US. For influencers that use TikTok as a content platform, many are concerned, very concerned that this federal law ban will have a serious impact on their livelihood. But here’s something that I haven’t heard much chatter about. What happens to those brand integration contracts where an influencer is required to post content to TikTok after the ban date? Does this Does this mean that an influencer is in breach? Can the influencer be liable to a brand for failure to perform, even though it’s really out of the control of the influencer? I’m Scott Hervia, a partner with the law firm of Weintraub, Tobin, and I’m joined today by my colleague, Jamie Lindsberg, to talk about whether influencers face potential liability due to the TikTok ban on this installment of the briefing.

Jamie, welcome back to The Briefing.

Jamie:
Thanks for having me again, Scott.

Scott:
This is an interesting topic, and I got to say, from the time that I put our outline together till today when we’re recording this podcast, it really has been about three days, and so much has changed in those three days. But as we’re recording this, we’re recording this on the 21st, yesterday, the 20th, President Trump granted TikTok a 75-day stay for the band to take effect, pending some deal to work out the issues related to this federal law that would ban TikTok’s operations and also would ban any company from hosting or allowing TikTok app to be made available to users in the United States. Let’s first talk about the TikTok ban or sale law. This law was passed in April 2024 as part of a broader For an aid package. It gives ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, approximately 9 to 12 months to sell TikTok’s US operations to an American buyer. If ByteDance fails to divest TikTok within the time frame, which we know happened, the app would be banned from US app stores and web hosting services. In between April 2024 and January 19, 2025, which is the band date, there were lawsuits filed by TikTok, lawsuits filed by the FTC and the DOJ, appeals to federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which upheld the ban.

As I said, while I was working on our outline for the episode, the Wall Street Journal reported that President-elect Trump said that he would issue in order to reopen TikTok on Monday, January 20th, 2025. As we know, on Monday, President Trump gave TikTok a 75-day stay of the ban.

Jamie:
Yeah, that’s right, Scott. A lot’s happened in the last couple of days around this, but we have been anticipating the effects of this for quite some time now. The history of TikTok’s bumpy relationship with the US prior to April of 2024 is important to understand. In 2020, the Trump administration had expressed some concerns about TikTok’s Chinese ownership and privacy and security issues, and the administration had threatened to force a sale or a ban through executive orders. You may recall that Trump had even pushed for an acquisition Microsoft. But after that fell through, Oracle entered into a commercial agreement with TikTok for the purpose of protecting US data.

Scott:
Right. But even after that, and through 2023, various states passed laws banning the use of TikTok on government devices. And in the end, 39 states have banned TikTok on government devices. Also, important to note, the federal government bans TikTok on devices owned by the federal government, and certain universities have banned the use of TikTok on campus WiFi and university-owned computers. And in 2023, there was increased bipartisan pressure and congressional hearings about TikTok’s data practices and potential national security concerns.

Jamie:
The timeline that you’ve just mentioned creates legal implications for influencer contracts. We can essentially divide those contracts into three distinct time periods, each with its own legal implications. First contract signed before 2020, when TikTok faced its first serious regulatory scrutiny under the Trump administration. Second, contract signed between 2020 and early 2024 during that period of increasing regulatory pressure. Third, following enactment of the law in April 2024.

Scott:
Let’s explain why this timeline is important in looking at potential influence or liability under a brand agreement that requires posting of integrations on TikTok after the ban. We’re looking at a potential defense to this liability. The first is under a legal doctrine called the doctrine of impossibility, and the other is under the application of any force majeure provision that might be in the agreement. Let’s talk about the doctrine of impossibility first. Under the doctrine of impossibility, a party may be excused from performing a contract if a supervening event prevents compliance with the agreement. In California, the doctrine requires the party a hurting the defense of impossibility to establish the following: one, that the supervening event, in this case, the TikTok ban, makes performance impossible or impractical. Two, the non-occurrence of the event, meaning that the US government’s shutdown of TikTok, was a basic assumption upon which the contract was based. Essentially, was the supervening event foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into. Three, the occurrence of the supervening event resulted without the fault of the party seeking to be excused. Four, the party seeking to be excused did not assume the risk of the occurrence of that event.

And five, the parties have not agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to perform in spite of the impossibility or impractability that would otherwise justify on performance.

Jamie:
It sounds like the doctrine of impossibility could provide a defense to a breach claim depending on when the contract was actually entered into. If there are agreements where performance is still required that were entered into prior to 2020, when TikTok first faced US scrutiny, then the impossibility defense would be strongest as a full platform ban wasn’t widely contemplated at that point.

Scott:
I agree with you. For any agreement signed after 2020, but before April 2024, I think it’s a mixed bag as some level of platform risk was foreseeable. However, I can also see an argument that TikTok’s deal with Oracle mitigated the potential of any platform ban. Prior to the enactment of the ban or sale law in April 2024, I can see a real strong argument that That impossibility, the doctrine of impossibility would provide a good defense.

Jamie:
Right. And I think in practice, the concern really has only come up and been a point of conversation over the last maybe 6 to 12 months. So the agreement The arguments that may face bigger problems applying the impossibility defense would be those entered into after April of 2024. At that point, the risk of a potential platform ban was known, and any influencer who entered into an agreement requiring posting on TikTok after the ban date likely did take on the burden of performing despite that risk of impossibility.

Scott:
Yeah, I can see that. But there is an argument to the contrary because the legislation did provide the possibility of a sale and not just a ban. So as such, courts might view this differently than a straightforward impossibility case. So the question then becomes, Is it the ban that’s foreseeable or the possibility of continued operation under new ownership? Which one is more foreseeable than the other? Or how foreseeable would be the ban over continued operation under new ownership?

Jamie: