Connect with us

Business

Congress is threatening to ban TikTok. Here's what you should know

Published

on

Congress is threatening to ban TikTok. Here's what you should know

The House of Representatives’ lopsided vote Wednesday in favor of a bill banning TikTok in the U.S. unless it is freed from Chinese control suggests the wildly popular short-video app could soon join Netscape and Myspace in the dustbin of history.

But the situation is far more complicated than that.

Policymakers agree that TikTok poses unique privacy and security threats because of the Chinese government’s influence over its owner, Beijing-based ByteDance. But the app has a powerful, albeit newly converted, backer in former President Trump, meaning that Republicans who would ordinarily support any bill to lessen Chinese influence are torn on the TikTok proposal.

Beyond that, TikTok captures the attention of an estimated 150 million Americans each month, roughly half of whom are active users, making it one of the most popular apps in the country — despite concerns about privacy, misinformation and harm to young users. The potential ban has drawn fiery objections from across the country, including from entrepreneurs, small businesses and marketers who say it would be a financial shock.

Some opponents of a ban have called it a violation of the 1st Amendment. Others wondered why TikTok was being singled out as a threat, considering how many apps hoover up their users’ personal data. And some argued that the bill would benefit only U.S. tech giants Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, and Alphabet, the owner of YouTube.

Advertisement

Here’s a quick rundown of what’s happening and why, and what it means for TikTok users.

What does the bill seek from TikTok?

The House-passed bill seeks to do the same thing Trump sought to do as president: take TikTok out of the hands of a Chinese company subject to Chinese law. The Trump administration went so far as to ban TikTok in the United States in 2020. That order was blocked by two federal courts, however, which held that the administration had overstepped its authority.

ByteDance, an internet-focused, venture-capital-funded startup founded in China in 2012, owns 100% of TikTok. Although outside investors control 60% of ByteDance, according to Axios, the Chinese company retains operational control.

The new bill, which sped through the House, would prohibit companies from distributing, maintaining or updating a “foreign adversary controlled application,” or providing internet hosting services for companies that do any of those things. It defines “foreign adversary controlled application” as ByteDance, TikTok and its successors, although it would give the president the power to name other social media and communications apps with 1 million or more users that are controlled by people residing in a “foreign adversary country.”

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the measure would give ByteDance 180 days to end Chinese control, which would require it to limit Chinese investors to a 20% stake in the company. That would probably require ByteDance to spin off TikTok into an independent company with more limited Chinese investment.

Advertisement

If ByteDance did not comply, the bill would require it to let users retrieve all their data, including all information about their preferences, views and uploads, in a format that could be transferred to another social media app.

Who uses TikTok?

According to Pew Research Center, 33% of U.S. adults said last year that they use TikTok. That’s a lot of people, yet it pales in comparison with the number using other major social media platforms. According to Pew, 83% of U.S. adults said last year that they use YouTube and 47% said they use Instagram.

Young people are far more likely to use TikTok than their parents, but even they make heavier use of YouTube and Instagram. According to Pew, 62% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they use TikTok, as do 63% of 13- to 17-year-olds.

“To me, TikTok is modern-day television and so any kind of disturbance of it would really hurt people — not just creators — because people really enjoy it,” said television personality Foodgod, formerly known as Jonathan Cheban.

Foodgod, who has 8.5 million followers for his food and lifestyle videos on TikTok, said he cycles through the social media apps on his phone every hour and enjoys the more casual vibe on TikTok. Banning it, he said, would be “literally like going into someone’s room and ripping their TV out of the wall, which I think is insane.”

Advertisement

“But honestly, I think TikTok is here to stay. There’s too many people on it and too many people love it,” he said. “It feels like you’re so much freer on TikTok to do what you want. It’s not like Instagram — everything is so structured and you have to make it perfect.”

Could the government really ban TikTok?

Passing the Senate might be the smallest hurdle remaining for a TikTok ban.

ByteDance and other opponents of the bill are almost certain to challenge it in court on 1st Amendment grounds, just as they successfully challenged Montana’s attempt to ban the app. Defenders of the bill say it doesn’t impinge on free speech because it targets ByteDance’s conduct, not the content on the app. But critics counter that the bill wouldn’t protect Americans from having their data harvested by foreign interests.

Telecom industry experts say that it’s technically possible to ban TikTok, but there are issues.

First, the bill wouldn’t remove TikTok from the phones that already have it. It would, however, bar companies from providing TikTok updates, which could render the app unusable over time as phone operating systems change.

Advertisement

Second, although the bill would force Google Play and Apple’s App Store to stop distributing TikTok’s app in the U.S., it wouldn’t apply to non-U.S. sources of phone software, nor would it be easy to enforce on unofficial sites online. So the app and its updates would remain available to people willing and able to “sideload” them from such sources.

That’s not hard on an Android phone, but on an Apple iPhone, it’s trickier — at least for now. Apple has just started allowing a form of sideloading in Europe, in response to the European Digital Markets Act.

There’s a trade-off to this approach, however, said Emma Llansó, former director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Without regular privacy and security updates, the app would become “a great target for people looking to exploit out-of-date software,” she said, adding, “It creates this other kind of vulnerability that would be affecting millions of people, including a lot of young people.”

If the government formally outlawed TikTok, network operators could conceivably block traffic between the company’s servers and U.S. users. But the app’s enormous user base may rush to find ways to circumvent any barriers, such as using virtual private networks to connect to TikTok through other countries, said Michael Calabrese, director of the Wireless Future Project at New America. “Savvy Chinese can do it, so [it] should be so much easier here,” Calabrese said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if this became a thing.”

What would a ban mean for content creators and small businesses?

An effective ban — which, again, is not a sure thing even if the bill becomes law — would mean at least three things for content creators.

Advertisement

Established creators would be cut off from the loyal audience of followers they’d worked to build. New and established creators alike would lose access to a giant global marketplace of viewers. And creators of all stripes would have one fewer outlet for their work that offered unique tools and sensibilities.

The same would be true for the estimated 7 million small businesses that use TikTok to boost sales, by the app’s count. According to a survey last year by Capterra, a software consultant, small and medium-size businesses say their marketing efforts get far more engagement on TikTok than on other social media networks.

According to the Capterra survey, businesses have found the social network to be particularly useful in capitalizing on trends, carving out a distinct niche for their brand and educating customers about their products and services.

Granted, there are other platforms for the short videos that make up the vast majority of TikTok content, including Instagram Reels and YouTube #Shorts. Like TikTok, they use secret and mystifying algorithms to decide which videos to show users; the lessons creators learned in TikTok about how to generate views and build an audience may not apply anywhere else.

Anecdotes abound about people who quit their day jobs so they could build a business out of TikTok videos. The platform isn’t just for dancers, lip-synchers and pranksters — it’s also become a serious vehicle for ecommerce. The app launched TikTok Shop in September, quickly powering $7 million in sales a day.

Advertisement

“I’m kind of in denial to be honest,” said Kelsey Martinez, 32, a TikTok creator who lives in Pasadena. “It just never occurred to me that this could actually happen. If TikTok were to go away tomorrow, it would completely change my entire life.”

Martinez joined the platform in 2022, mainly posting about her weight-loss journey. Last summer, after expanding her videos to include fashion, beauty and lifestyle content, her TikTok account took off, growing to more than 287,000 followers today. She gets a cut of the sales made from product links included in her videos, and has landed brand deals with skin-care companies Murad and Salt & Stone as well as Lizzo’s shapewear brand, Yitty.

“I actually stepped away from my full-time position because I’ve been able to make a living and make multiple times my yearly salary through TikTok. And so, really, it’s everything,” said Martinez, who previously worked in human resources for a nonprofit.

“This is what I do, this is my job. I would definitely take a hit if it were to go away,” she said.

Many creators say they already cross-post their TikTok videos to Instagram and other platforms (and vice versa), although the results can differ dramatically and unpredictably. TikTok creators who aren’t already putting their work on multiple platforms have a few months to do so before a federal ban could take effect.

Advertisement

Bear in mind that the sites have different approaches to monetizing videos and generating revenue for creators. And building an audience presents a different challenge on each platform; for example, Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram encourage creators to pay to target their content to particular types of viewers, while building an audience on TikTok is more organic, said Kellis Landrum, co-founder of Los Angeles marketing agency True North Social.

TikTok influencer Ashley Dunham has been following news of the proposed ban carefully and has already made some adjustments to her social media strategy.

“I’ve been starting to post more of my content over on Instagram and it’s surprisingly getting some traction,” said Dunham, whose posts chronicle her experience with semaglutide (the active ingredient in Ozempic), plastic surgery and polycystic ovary syndrome. “The one downside about Instagram is that it’s always two weeks behind on trends.”

The 33-year-old from Jacksonville, Fla., called the possible TikTok ban “a disservice to not only creators but Americans as a whole,” saying U.S.-based apps similarly collect personal data from users and can be manipulated.

What would a ban mean for parents?

Aside from the national security concerns surrounding China’s access to TikTok users’ personal data, the biggest complaint about the app is how well it holds the attention of young users. In Pew’s survey last year, 17% of teens said they use TikTok almost constantly, and an additional 32% used it several times a day.

Advertisement

Other concerns are more safety related, including fears that TikTok’s videos can fuel eating disorders and that the videos young people make of themselves will expose them to predators. The app’s default settings try to address those concerns, although the settings can be changed or circumvented by determined users.

If TikTok were to disappear tomorrow, that wouldn’t stop kids from staring at their cellphones for hours on end. According to Pew’s survey, 46% of teens said they were online almost constantly — far more than the percentage glued to TikTok. An additional 47% said they were online several times per day.

And the complaints raised about TikTok in terms of its addictiveness, reinforcement of unhealthy behavior and risk of predation have been leveled at other social networks as well.

Advertisement

Business

Grocery Outlet restarts expansion with new California branches

Published

on

Grocery Outlet restarts expansion with new California branches

Grocery Outlet is opening new locations across California, rebuilding its network in the Golden State after closing stores early this year.

A new branch in Ontario Ranch is scheduled to open July 23, and more openings are planned for later this summer.

The location will be operated by independent owners Gloria and Jason Pineda. By the end of August, the discount grocery retailer plans to open stores in Ramona, San Francisco, Clovis and Petaluma as well.

The Emeryville, Calif.-based chain announced the closure of 36 stores in March, including nine California locations. The closures were an attempt to roll back an overexpansion in the wrong markets, resulting in a loss in 2025. Grocery Outlet did not announce which locations would be closed at the time, but they were listed for sublease by advisory firm Gordon Bros.

Among those listed was an Ontario location closer than seven miles from the soon-to-open site.

Advertisement

Five other Southern California locations were marked for closing in Azusa, Brawley, El Cajon, La Habra, Ontario and Poway. In Central California, the Kerman, Patterson and Ridgecrest stores were also listed for sublease. Outside of California, stores in Idaho, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania also were listed.

In an earnings call in May, Grocery Outlet Chief Executive Jason Potter said the restructuring was helping boost the company’s profit.

“These closures are now complete and have improved fleet quality and will strengthen the earnings profile of the business over time,” he said.

Grocery Outlet was founded in San Francisco in 1946 as a discount grocery store chain selling overstock of limited-time or holiday food items. There are about 280 Grocery Outlet locations in California, accounting for more than half of its total store count.

Though Grocery Outlet has cultivated a dedicated consumer base on TikTok and other social media posts from grocery bargain hunters, it faces fierce competition from other budget grocery chains, including Aldi, which is set to open 180 stores in 2026. It also competes with Trader Joe’s, Walmart and Amazon, which have steadily gained customers.

Advertisement

Last year it was also hurt by the lapse in federal food assistance during the 43-day government shutdown.

In the wake of rising grocery prices and economic anxiety, some low-income customers who would once have shopped at budget grocery chains such as Grocery Outlet are turning to food banks instead. According to Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, 1.2 million people visit its food banks per month.

Grocery Outlet’s net sales rose 4% in the first quarter from a year earlier to $1.17 billion. It recorded a net loss of $180 million for the period.

It said it had closed locations as part of its optimization plan. It also underwent a store refresh program, changing products and is clustering locations to boost profit and customer traffic.

“Our value-oriented product offering continues to resonate with consumers. While we’re encouraged by the progress we’re beginning to see, we’re not satisfied with our current level of performance and are focused on the work we have in front of us,” Potter said on the earnings call.

Advertisement

Grocery Outlet shares have fallen more than 25% over the last 12 months. The Dow Jones industrial average has climbed more than 15% during the same period.

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: Trump greenlights California’s dumbest water project

Published

on

Commentary: Trump greenlights California’s dumbest water project

On July 9, the Trump administration delivered a gift to Cadiz Inc., a politically well-connected firm that has been trying for decades to win approval for a scheme to pump water out of the Mojave Desert and market it to water agencies across the Southland.

The administration approved the company’s application to convert an abandoned 220-mile oil and gas pipeline crossing the desert to carry water instead. Susan Kennedy, the chief executive of Cadiz, called the approval “a pivotal milestone” that would enable the project to move into its construction stage.

Here’s betting that Kennedy’s statement was somewhat premature. The project still faces significant opposition from environmentalists, local Indian tribes and the state of California. It has been declared ready to go — and declared dead, too — so often that it could serve as a character in a zombie movie or streaming series.

I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that there’s not going to be any environmental damage.

— Ileene Anderson, Center for Biological Diversity

Advertisement

Indeed, this is the second time that Trump has greenlighted this project. He did so during his first term, but his decision was overturned during the Biden administration; Trump’s most recent approval overturned that action — but there’s no promising that the next president, whoever that is, won’t overturn this one.

I’ve been covering the Cadiz project for nearly 25 years, starting in 2002; I take credit for helping to put the kibosh on a proposal for the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to 13 million Southern California residents, to partner with Cadiz.

In fact, there’s reason to wonder whether Cadiz itself still wants to do the project, even though in the past it described it as its potential corporate lifeblood.

Advertisement

Last year Cadiz reported that nearly 90% of its revenue stemmed from the sale of water filtration equipment manufactured by ATEC, a Hollister firm it acquired in 2022. That segment is its only profitable operation, though the $2.5 million in operating income the unit produced in 2025 was swamped by losses in its other operations — mostly the sale of fruits and vegetables grown on its desert tract — producing an overall loss of $25.6 million. The company has never reported a profit.

Kennedy told me this week that she now sees the water treatment business as “the future of our company — an enormous market opportunity.” She said “demand for filtration is skyrocketing,” with cleansed stormwater “the biggest source of new water supply.” Cadiz has doubled its manufacturing capacity for the equipment, and “we expect to double again.” The company has also signed an agreement to produce hydrogen at its desert site by installing a solar array for power.

Meanwhile, Cadiz is taking steps to hive off the infrastructure it has planned to use for its water project, mostly two unused pipelines, into a special purpose subsidiary. These entities are typically aimed at insulating the parent company from the risks and liabilities of a speculative investment.

In this case, Kennedy told me, the idea is to open the water project more broadly to outside investors.

In practice, that means that the pipelines Cadiz proposes to use to transport desert waters to urban, industrial and agricultural users would fall into the hands of private equity firms, which haven’t been known as a class for their devotion to the public interest. Cadiz would end up with a minority stake in the pipelines, Kennedy says.

Advertisement

Transporting water out of the desert faces so many headwinds that it may make more sense to divest the business and shift over into less controversial enterprises, like filtering poisonous minerals out of reclaimed stormwater and producing hydrogen.

It’s worth reacquainting ourselves with the company’s discreditable history. The Cadiz project was the brainchild of British-born Keith Brackpool, who had a checkered record as an investment promoter. As I wrote in 2002, he pleaded guilty in London in 1983 to criminal charges that included dealing in securities without a license.

Brackpool’s pitch was that by stockpiling water from the Colorado River under the Cadiz sands in years when a surplus was available and delivering it during droughts, the company could assuage the supply crisis confronting Southern California.

I wrote years ago that the project boasted “a sort of shimmering authenticity” — if one didn’t look too closely. Yes, the state faces a long-term water shortage. But the problem is that there’s no surplus water in the Colorado available for California. Cadiz has never made a conclusive case that it could withdraw as much water from its desert tract as it proposed without draining its underground aquifer to a dangerous level or causing its contamination with carcinogenic minerals.

After he started pitching the project in the mid-1990s it began to look as though the company’s principal asset was political juice. Former Rep. Tony Coelho, an important Democratic Party fundraiser, served on the Cadiz board. Cadiz and Brackpool were leading campaign contributors to former Gov. Gray Davis, who was thought to be the source of pressure on the Metropolitan Water District to make a deal with Cadiz. Brackpool hobnobbed with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who received campaign contributions from him and Cadiz. (Brackpool is no longer associated with Cadiz.)

Advertisement

Kennedy herself had been associated with Cadiz since before she became chief of staff to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Before her appointment, and while she was serving on the state Public Utilities Commission, the firm paid her $120,000 in consulting fees. In 2009, Schwarzenegger endorsed the water scheme as “a path-breaking, new, sustainable groundwater conservation and storage project.”

For years, Cadiz shares traded as a sort of plaything for water investors hoping for a big score over the horizon — what craps players call “betting on the come.” In this case the bet is on the distant prospect that government approvals would eventually make the project real.

For these players, the investments tended to be cheap compared to the potential gains. The largest shareholder of Cadiz, with a 35% stake, is Netherlands-based Heerema International Services, a global industrial infrastructure company. Its holding is worth about $115 million at the current stock price — peanuts for a company that collects revenue of about $5 billion a year.

Then there’s Trump. In March 2017, his Interior Department reversed two Obama administration rulings that had blocked Cadiz’s ability to use a 43-mile pipeline to carry water from the desert to Southern California users. Biden’s Interior Department canceled those rulings. The July 9 action applies to a separate 220-mile pipeline.

In its recent ruling, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management stated that the pipeline conversion would have “no significant impact … on the quality of the human environment” and therefore no environmental impact statement was even needed.

Advertisement

Environmental groups and other plaintiffs who have been fighting the project are “looking at all our options” for legal challenge, says Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in lawsuits challenging the project. “I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that there’s not going to be any environmental damage,” she says.

When I spoke with Kennedy in January 2024, a few weeks after she took over as Cadiz CEO, she acknowledged that the company’s name had become a “poison pill.” Her plan was to “change the company so people think about it differently.”

At that time, this amounted to refocusing its water supply program on serving users in San Bernardino County rather than urban users throughout Southern California. The idea was to counteract what she called a “political” claim that its goal was to drain the desert to “fill swimming pools in L.A.”

Kennedy didn’t mention ATEC then, but she talks about it today with unalloyed enthusiasm. Indeed, she asserted that the water filtration and hydrogen production businesses together could use as much of the company’s available water as it would pipe miles across the desert.

Kennedy is correct to maintain that government, which once built Hoover Dam, the Central Valley Project and Glen Canyon Dam as crucial pieces of our water infrastructure, “has gotten out of the business.”

Advertisement

But it’s wrong to say that it’s because government can’t afford such projects. Ceding them to private equity is a choice. Given Americans’ dependence on water as a life-giving commodity, do we really want to establish private firms as toll-takers on the water highway, permitted to charge what they wish to maximize their profits? Cadiz may be beating a path to that future, but it may not be a happy journey.

Continue Reading

Business

A ‘next generation studio’ for YouTube creators

Published

on

A ‘next generation studio’ for YouTube creators

Hollywood’s fascination with YouTube creators is going to the next level.

Los Angeles-based investment firm Content Partners and media entrepreneur Ed Simpson announced Tuesday that they are launching a new company, Wonderloom Media, that will acquire YouTube-creator led businesses.

Wonderloom’s first acquisition is YouTube true-crime channel Dr. Insanity, which has more than 5 million subscribers and more than 1.3 billion total views.

Content Partners owns or licenses more than 800 films and more than 3,000 hours of television content. The company co-owns the “CSI” franchise.

“This is a kind of next step evolution in the type of IP we will be acquiring,” Alphonse Lordo, a partner at Content Partners, said in an interview.

Advertisement

The effort comes as the film industry continues to struggle to bring more people into movie theaters and has had recent success with the YouTube creator-led films “Obsession” and “Backrooms.” As studios and TV networks have shed jobs over the years, more entertainment workers are applying their expertise at major YouTube creator-led businesses, which have continued to grow their audiences.

YouTube’s audience has shifted from smartphones to TVs, on which many U.S. consumers watch YouTube videos with their families. That in turn has attracted streamers such as Netflix to partner with YouTube creators to bring their content to the same platform that has high-budget television shows and movies.

Simpson, a former TV producer who will be Wonderloom’s chief executive, said Dr. Insanity was the “perfect first acquisition” because it had a loyal audience, proven storytelling and meaningful room to expand. “True crime is an incredibly sticky genre of programming that works just as well as it does on YouTube, as it does on Netflix and linear and cable channels,” he said in an interview.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Wonderloom, based in L.A., also will assist entrepreneurs who started YouTube channels grow their businesses.

Advertisement

The new company also is eyeing possible acquisitions in food, travel and general entertainment programming, added Simpson, a former chief strategy officer at Wheelhouse, a production firm behind “America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders.”

“This is about building the next generation studio, so we think of this as the beginnings of Paramount, of Warner Bros., of those great studios,” Simpson said. “We see this space following in that very same pattern right now.”

Other Hollywood companies also are getting into the creator business acquisition space. Last month, Century City-based Creative Artists Agency said it was partnering with Integrated Media Co. to form a $250-million holding company called Compound Creative Holdings that will acquire and operate a portfolio of creator economy businesses.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending