Business

How the block on Montana’s TikTok ban could thwart other proposals on December 7, 2023 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 7, 2023

The defeat of Montana’s TikTok ban in federal court could deter other lawmakers from moving ahead with efforts to block the popular video sharing app facing bipartisan backlash.

There was mounting scrutiny over TikTok before Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed the a law in May banning the app. House lawmakers grilled TikTok’s CEO in March as momentum and pressure built to ban the app. Dozens of states and the federal government followed up with narrower bans, restricting the TikTok from government-owned devices.

But a district judge’s ruling that Montana’s law violates users’ free speech could be a warning sign for state legislatures and Congress to avoid running into the same roadblock. Experts had already warned lawmakers that such bans would be difficult or nearly impossible to enforce.

Sarah Kreps, director of the Tech Policy Institute in the Cornell Brooks School of Public Policy, said the ruling feels like it may be a “final nail in the coffin” of proposals aimed at banning something as popular as TikTok.

“The judicial pushback against TikTok was always going to be an uphill battle, because of the constitutional questions about free speech, and Montana was a testbed for whether a ban could actually work,” Kreps said.

“What this shows is that courts take free speech very seriously,” she added.

When Montana became the first state to pass a law seeking to fully ban TikTok in May, it drew immediate pushback both from the company and civil rights groups that the law infringed on users’ free speech rights.

District Judge Donald Molloy agreed in his ruling last week, writing that “while there may be a public interest in protecting Montana consumers, the State has not shown how this TikTok bill does that.”

“Instead, [the bill] oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional rights of users and businesses,” he wrote.

Molloy blocked Montana’s TikTok ban, which was set to take effect in January, through a preliminary injunction.

“This ruling is very significant,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU.

She said the ruling will make lawmakers looking to “directly or indirectly” ban TikTok, “think twice about the constitutionality of what they’re doing.”

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at the tech industry group NetChoice, called it a “huge red light to every other state considering such action.”

“Not just because of it being bad policy, but because it is never going to take effect. And all it will do is force the state to waste taxpayer resources fighting legislation that lawmakers know to be unconstitutional,” he said.

TikTok is among the association members at NetChoice.

How does this impact other potential TikTok bans?

Lawmakers have proposed versions of bills that sought to ban TikTok since the start of the year based on concerns about ByteDance, its China-based parent company.

Congressional critics of TikTok argue that the app threatens national security by giving a Chinese company access to sensitive personal data from American users, which could then be shared with the Chinese government. TikTok has pushed back on such allegations.

House and Senate Republicans introduced bills that aimed to ban the use of TikTok broadly. Those efforts were met with criticism from Democrats, but a bipartisan proposal was introduced in March that seemingly faired a better chance at gaining broad coalition of support.

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced the RESTRICT Act, which would give the Commerce Department the ability to identify and mitigate risks posed by technology linked to foreign adversaries, including China. The bill would ultimately give the administration the power to ban such apps, as well.

Warner spokesperson Rachel Cohen said the ruling “just demonstrates the need for a comprehensive, national solution to address foreign technology threats that won’t be struck down by the courts,” Cohen said in an email.

Leventoff, though, said the RESTRICT Act would likely face a similar fate in court if used to ban TikTok.

“If the Secretary of Commerce uses that extremely broad new authority to ban TikTok, a court would find that ban unconstitutional,” she said.

“That First Amendment analysis is going to happen, no matter what avenue the government uses to ban TikTok,” she added.

Szabo noted that when former President Trump tried to ban TikTok through an executive order in 2020 he “collided with the same limitation — the First Amendment.”

“What the judge made clear here is that just like it’s impossible to drive from New York City to London, it’s impossible to enact this type of ban on speech without violating the First Amendment,” Szabo said.

The state of Montana has not said whether it will attempt to appeal the decision to the federal Court of Appeals.

Emily Cantrell, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R), said “this is a preliminary matter at this point” and the state is “weighing our options.”

“The judge indicated several times that the analysis could change as the case proceeds and the State has the opportunity to present a full factual record. We look forward to presenting the complete legal argument to defend the law that protects Montanans from the Chinese Communist Party obtaining and using their data,” Cantrell said in a statement.

A TikTok spokesperson said the company is “pleased the judge rejected this unconstitutional law and hundreds of thousands of Montanans can continue to express themselves, earn a living, and find community on TikTok.”

What about TikTok bans on government devices?

Although Montana is the only state to pass a full ban on TikTok, other states and the federal government have put in place more narrow bans on the app on government owned devices.

George Wang, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institue at Columbia University, said that although the ruling is about Montana’s law, it could persuade other states considering their own bans, or even ones with narrower bans, to “drop those efforts.”

“While the ruling is specific to Montana, it’s still a serious thing that a federal court, the first federal court to consider these bans, has indicated that at least the categorical ban likely violates the First Amendment,” Wang said.

The Knight First Amendment Institute is challenging Texas’s TikTok ban on government devices on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, citing how the ban applies to faculty in the state’s public universities.

“Whether the other states or Biden administration kind of take this in, remains to be seen, but it is a significant thing that the first federal court to address it has ruled the way it did,” Wang said.

The narrower bans, though, may fare better in court given the authority governments have.

“I think that that’s a separate question because governments can take measures more narrowly that they deem to be in the national security interest,” Kreps said.

Szabo likened the government device bans to limitations a private company has on what websites its employees can access.

“It is one thing for a business to tell its employees what they can and can’t do on the company devices. It’s a completely different thing for the government to come in and tell private citizens what they can and can’t do on their own devices,” he said.

Even if a government ban on TikTok were allowed to proceed, though, experts have pointed out technical difficulties of enforcing a ban based on loopholes that would allow users to gain access to the platform.

Kreps said that could also keep lawmakers from pushing forward bans.

“I think [it’s] worse than inaction to implement a policy that becomes farcical because no one will comply with it,” she said.

Technology, Business The defeat of Montana’s TikTok ban in federal court could deter other lawmakers from moving ahead with efforts to block the popular video sharing app facing bipartisan backlash. There was mounting scrutiny over TikTok before Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed the a law in May banning the app. House lawmakers grilled TikTok’s CEO in March as…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

3 days ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

5 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

5 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.