Business
Questions swirl over the future of TikTok. Who could own it? How will the platform operate?
TikTok on Wednesday faced a formidable threat to its business, with a new law signed by President Biden that could dramatically change the way the popular video app operates.
TikTok, which is owned by Chinese company ByteDance, has faced scrutiny from U.S. government officials over how it handles the data of its users here as well as its ties to China. The new law would require ByteDance, a tech company founded in China in 2012, to sell TikTok or the app will be banned in the U.S.
In a statement, TikTok said it has invested billions of dollars to protect the data of its U.S. users and that a ban would “devastate seven million business and silence 170 million Americans.”
The social media app, which has a large presence in Culver City, is a key platform for influencers, musicians and Hollywood talent.
“This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,” TikTok said in a statement. “We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail.”
Now that Congress has voted to ban TikTok, how soon could a sale occur?
The law requires ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations in 180 days or face a ban . If the Biden administration grants an extension, ByteDance could have a year to sell .
This isn’t the first time the app has faced such a threat. The company confronted a similar fate four years ago when the Trump administration banned it in the U.S.
TikTok sued the federal government, arguing that a ban would violate free speech. Ultimately, the order was blocked by two federal courts, which ruled the administration had exceeded its authority.
“It’s obviously a disappointing moment, but it does not need to be a defining one,” TikTok Chief Executive Shou Zi Chew said in a video posted on X on Wednesday. “It’s actually ironic because the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.”
Any sale of TikTok would also need the approval of the Chinese government.
How valuable is TikTok and who might buy it?
The most valuable aspect of TikTok is its algorithm, which surfaces videos that aim to consistently attract the attention of its users in the U.S.
“TikTok’s ability to serve up relevant and entertaining content to its users is unparalleled in the social media world,” Jasmine Enberg, a principal analyst with insights provider Emarketer, said in a statement.
Enberg noted that U.S. users spend 54 minutes on TikTok each day, compared with 35 minutes a day on Instagram’s app.
If ByteDance sells TikTok with its algorithm — which is unlikely — the platform would be worth $100 billion. Without the algorithm, TikTok would have a valuation of $30 billion to $40 billion, said Daniel Ives, a managing director with Wedbush Securities.
The most likely bidders? Computer software giants Microsoft and Oracle, analysts said.
“This would be a major strategic asset that would enable these tech stalwarts to have a massive consumer platform,” Ives said. “Data is gold, and TikTok would be like finding a gold mine for a tech stalwart.”
Microsoft declined to comment. Oracle did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Microsoft in August 2020 had explored taking control of TikTok in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia, which would have helped the company expand its presence in social media. But in September 2020 Microsoft said that ByteDance had rejected its offer.
Instead, then-President Trump outlined a framework of a deal in 2020 that involved Oracle and Walmart, in which Oracle would host TikTok’s U.S. user data and TikTok would have a commercial partnership with Walmart. That transaction never materialized.
Other investors have also shown interest. Former Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, who heads Liberty Strategic Capital, in March said he is assembling an investor group to bid for TikTok, telling CNBC, “This should be owned by U.S. businesses.”
TikTok will attract interest from other private equity players as well, Ives said.
What about Triller?
Triller, an L.A.-based social media company that attracted a lot of influencers to its app in 2020, had previously attempted to acquire TikTok with Centricus Asset Management.
But that deal was never consummated and Triller experienced its own legal issues. Earlier this month, Hong Kong financial services company AGBA Group Holding Ltd. said it planned to acquire Triller in a reverse merger.
“Triller is reviewing all options at this time to secure its position as the leading social video platform in the U.S.,” Triller Chief Executive Bobby Sarnevesht said in a statement.
Could Google or Meta acquire TikTok?
That’s unlikely. Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, are already big leaders in the digital advertising and social media space and could face significant antitrust concerns if they were to attempt to buy TikTok.
Both tech giants also already have their own competing products to TikTok and stand to benefit if the video app were to go away, or if influencers were to encourage their massive audiences to follow them on other platforms.
“The clock is already ticking, and any potential buyer must have deep pockets and a strong stomach,” Enberg of EMarketer said. “While many would want to get their hands on TikTok’s coveted algorithm, most of those who could afford to buy the app wouldn’t be able to clear antitrust hurdles.”
So what would a ban mean for the creator economy in L.A.?
Los Angeles is ground zero for TikTok content creation in the U.S., with huge numbers of full-time creators calling the city home and droves of influencers regularly flying in from around the world to film videos and attend industry events.
Communities and mini economies have formed around TikTok influencers, who employ talent managers, agents, stylists and personal assistants, and start their own businesses related to their fandom.
Many creators have become overnight sensations and near-instant millionaires, banding together to rent mega-mansions and spending lavishly on cars, clothes and products — and encouraging their huge follower bases to do the same.
They have enormous influence on trends and purchasing decisions. Take, for example, Erewhon: After TikTokkers made its Strawberry Glaze Skin Smoothie a thing, thousands of consumers poured into the luxury grocery chain’s stores to buy the $19 pink drink.
“The amount of money creators are spending on travel, on products, on creating brands — there’s just so much that’s tied to this app,” said Michelle York, 40, a lifestyle and beauty creator from Moorpark, Calif.
With 203,000 followers on TikTok, she quit her job as an executive at an insurance and technology firm last month after discovering that she was earning more money from the app. If TikTok is banned, “the blowback I think will be astronomical,” York said. “And also the financial losses.”
Business
Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns
A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.
The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.
The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.
“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”
Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.
It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.
Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.
“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.
Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.
“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”
Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.
In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.
In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.
A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”
“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.
Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.
L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.
Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.
Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.
“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”
The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.
“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.
Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.
Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.
The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.
Business
Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley
Dear Mr. Pelley:
I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.
Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.
Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.
Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes
Business
Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud
The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.
The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.
Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.
Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.
Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.
In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.
The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.
Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.
The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.
The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.
-
Politics57 seconds agoSpencer Pratt surges to runoff in LA mayor’s race after angry voters send message to Karen Bass
-
Health6 minutes agoOne extra serving of processed meat a day linked to higher cancer risk
-
Sports13 minutes agoAJ Brown trade outcome: Dianna Russini paid a heavy price while Mike Vrabel emerged unscathed
-
Technology16 minutes agoCould your Samsung phone replace your passport?
-
Business21 minutes agoRent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns
-
Entertainment28 minutes agoTwo of music’s most powerful executives maxed out donations to Spencer Pratt
-
Lifestyle31 minutes agoVintage-obsessed millennial parents are driving L.A.’s booming kids’ clothing resale market
-
Politics36 minutes agoEarly returns indicate L.A. County voters have doubts about healthcare sales tax measure