This article is written by Kritika kumar, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Institute of Management and Research, BBA LL.B during her internship at Le Droit India.
ABSTRACT
The global debate about TikTok highlights a deeper struggle between national security, platform management, and intellectual property (IP) regulation. The popular short-video app has faced wholesale bans in countries such as India, attempts at regulatory overhaul in the United States, and strict compliance obligations under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A recurring thread across these developments is how states evaluate risks surrounding foreign ownership, data sovereignty, and transparency in algorithms. Remarkably, these state interventions are not primarily driven by copyright or trademark concerns, but by fears over data protection, trade secrets, and risks of systemic influence. However, TikTok’s model of business—based on music licensing, remix culture, and monetization of content—places IP issues center stage in its regulatory battles. In this paper, the response of different jurisdictions to TikTok and other Chinese apps is examined, with special emphasis on how copyright, trade secrets, and intermediary liability are dealt with. By comparing India’s prohibition approach, the U.S. audit-and-divestiture model, and EU/UK’s compliance-centered systems, the study examines if prohibitions adequately tackle “IP issues” or if better models of regulation and licensing are setting the worldwide standard.
INTRODUCTION
TikTok is not just another social networking site; it has become a cultural phenomenon, a large distribution platform for music and short videos, and a case study in how governments oversee digital platforms with foreign ownership ties. Being owned by ByteDance Ltd., a business founded in China, TikTok has become a center of attention in discussions around the world about data sovereignty, algorithmic accountability, and platform liability. With over one billion users globally, it has significant control over youth culture, music listening, and even political discussion. This control has caused anxiety to governments that the service operates as more than an entertainment platform—potentially serving as a platform for surveillance, disinformation, or biased competition.
Underneath the national security rhetoric, though, lies a distinctive yet related set of intellectual property (IP) issues. TikTok’s rapid growth relies significantly on the use of copyrighted material, creator-generated remixes, and a recommendation algorithm itself protected as a trade secret. Disputes with large music labels, e.g., Universal Music Group (UMG), illustrate how copyright licensing continues to be a central concern. At the same time, US and EU governments have demanded ways to monitor TikTok’s trade secret-protected algorithms, leading to questions about balancing national security regulation with protection for trade secrets. Similarly, trademark conflicts, imitator sales, and abuse of creators’ publicity rights illustrate the larger IP environment in which TikTok is embedded.
This piece seeks to explore how different legal regimes respond to TikTok and other Chinese apps when intellectual property overlaps with national security and governance concerns. India decided on a total ban under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act prioritizing sovereignty over IP. The United States has pursued a course of evolving CFIUS negotiations, “Project Texas,” and finally a divest-or-ban law, in a manner that poses.
WHY ARE GOVERNMENTS SO INTERESTED IN TikTok?
TikTok is at the intersection of national security, data privacy, and intellectual property (IP). It is owned by ByteDance, a firm founded in China, and it hosts a very personalized recommendation algorithm that changes fast depending on user activity. For policymakers, three main worries exist:
1. Data sovereignty and surveillance risks:
Huge volumes of sensitive metadata (e.g., location, device data, contact data, and biometric data from video such as voice and facial recognition) may in theory be made accessible to foreign governments or be used in influence operations. The very risk of mandated access under foreign law generates “risk-based” reactions.
2. Algorithmic power and electoral integrity:
A black-box recommendation system with the capability to amplify or repress political content on a grand scale is seen as a strategic communication tool. The EU is presently examining TikTok’s advertising transparency and election risks under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
3. Intellectual property law issues on a music-focused platform:
TikTok’s growth is based on music and short video remixes, which highlights copyright licensing (most notably synchronization rights) and platform responsibility. The 2024 UMG standoff and then resolution, as well as more extensive conflicts on platforms, demonstrate how licensing approaches intersect with content moderation and creator economies.
In this context, following is a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction summary of how the states have dealt with TikTok and, more broadly, “Chinese app IP issues.”
- India: the “hard ban” strategy (prioritizing sovereignty; collateral IP)
- Legislative framework: Information Technology Act, 2000,69A, Blocking Rules, 2009.
Action: A general prohibition on 59 Chinese apps, among which TikTok featured prominently, was issued on 29 June 2020; later waves expanded the list. The order invoked threats to sovereignty and integrity, defense, state security, and public order.
How IP relates:
• Algorithm and source code as intellectual property. The U.S. approach takes the form of third-party audits (Oracle and independent validators) to review proprietary code and model weights without requiring open disclosure striking a balance between national security guarantee and trade secret protection. This is an IP-sensitive model of audit and not seizure or forced transfer of intellectual property.
• Copyright licensing remains under private agreements. Even in national security talks, disagreements regarding music licensing have gone on individually (for example, UMG vs TikTok, settled in May 2024). The U.S. has not used copyright law to limit the use; rather, intellectual property issues are handled through contracts, DMCA compliance, and platform policies.
Takeaway: The U.S. is trying to reduce risk via ownership restructuring in combination with onshore data and algorithm controls—mechanisms that respect trade secrets but demand auditable governance to manage national security externalities.
EUROPEAN UNION AND UK: SYSTEMATICALLY REGULATE RISKS AND IMPOSE DATA/CHILD SAFETY AND AD TRANSPARENCY
A. GDPR enforcement (data & minors)
• Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (TikTok’s EU lead regulator) fined TikTok €345 million in 2023 regarding children’s privacy controls and transparency. Regulators have signaled recent additional waves of enforcement.
• There are rumors of a potential EU penalty in 2025 of hundreds of millions for infringement associated with children’s data; the formal enforcement environment is still shaping up, but direction is clear: robust data protection compliance for profiling children and handling cross-border data flows.
B. DSA proceedings (platform governance)
• The Commission has opened formal cases against TikTok on various grounds: protection of minors, addictive nature, ad transparency (the ad storage is not adequately search-augmented), and election integrity (mainly that of Romania’s re-run). First findings in May 2025 state that TikTok has breached ad transparency requirements; the fines could be as high as 6% of worldwide turnover.
C. Structural mitigation: “Project Clover” (EU/UK)
• Project Clover by TikTok targets localizing European user data to Ireland and Norway, with the NCC Group contracted to conduct source-code audits, detect data egress, and maintain continuous security assurance. This project is the European equivalent of Project Texas a framework that is cognizant of intellectual property, designed to reassure regulators without copying the algorithm.
D. UK’s ICO enforcement
• In 2023, the UK ICO penalized TikTok for allowing users younger than 13 years to use the service and for poor data practices. While this is not an intellectual property case, it signifies the data protection viewpoint that Europe and the UK have, which then affects how TikTok structures its code, datasets, and transparency tools.
Takeaway: The EU/UK model does not exclude the application; rather, it imposes compliance through rigorous, continuing requirements: data localization, auditability of algorithms, transparency in advertising, protection of children, and assessing risks. It uses GDPR/DSA measures instead of trade barriers or censorship while making sure that TikTok’s intellectual property (algorithms) is still guarded, meanwhile requiring third-party oversight.
5) “Middle” approaches elsewhere: government-device bans, suspensions for limited times, sectoral rules
• Government-device bans (no blanket ban on citizens):
Australia, Canada, EU institutions, and some U.S. states have banned TikTok on government or official devices, arguing in favor of security hygiene. The rationale here is to control the attack surface without restricting general freedom of speech.
• Pakistan periodically blocked access to TikTok between 2020 and 2021 for “immoral/indecent” content, this was presented as an issue of cultural and regulatory compliance rather than national security. The bans were ended upon guarantees of moderation, suggesting a compliance-for-access model.
• Indonesia did not ban TikTok entirely but did ban TikTok Shop in 2023 under a social-commerce regulation that differentiates payment and marketplace functions from social media—this is an example of how policy on competition and consumer protection crosses over with platform design.
TikTok BANS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH: A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
Although issues of national security and intellectual property frame the debate around TikTok bans, it is crucial to appreciate the fact that this topic is entwined with the larger backdrop of human rights. In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression that includes the right to receive information, disseminate creative content, and use digital media for economic livelihood. The government’s imposition of banning TikTok in 2020, under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, was premised on India’s sovereignty and integrity. Nevertheless, this ban directly impacted millions of Indian creators, most of whom had built large audiences and profited from their intellectual property through the platform. The absence of judicial review at the time of the ban left key questions of proportionality and necessity unlawfully explored within a constitutional context.
From an intellectual property point of view, the ban also interfered with creators’ ability to monetize their copyrighted works. TikTok was not just a platform of expression but also a marketplace for digital creativity, where the audience consumed content like music, dance, comedy, and educational content globally. By banning the platform, the State indirectly curtailed creators’ freedom to share and earn money from their intellectual property, bringing into question whether such curtailment represented a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). While Indian courts have traditionally been deferential to the executive branch in national security issues, a closer look might ponder whether targeted regulations (e.g., more stringent licensing, algorithm audits, or data localization) could have been a less restrictive option to a complete ban.
In contrast, the controversy in the United States over TikTok has involved a more distinctly constitutional aspect. Critics of the divest-or-ban law argue that prohibiting a complete application is a prior restraint on free speech, contrary to the basic doctrines of expression.
CONCLUSION
The global debate surrounding TikTok suggests that the bans on foreign apps are more about seeking control of data sovereignty, security, and governance than resolving intellectual property disputes. India’s blanket ban represents a sovereignty-first approach, while the United States has embarked on a divest-or-ban policy that tries to keep in balance the concerns over security with constitutional freedoms. On the other hand, the European Union and the United Kingdom illustrate how compliance-based frameworks can impose accountability while safeguarding trade secrets and facilitating continuous innovation. In spite of these different approaches, intellectual property continues to be a recurring theme: battles over music licensing, disputes over algorithmic trade secrets, and concerns about fake goods on the platform highlight the importance of IP law in TikTok’s global operations. However, bans simply relocate these issues and not solve them, as creators, record labels, and businesses still face unresolved ones even in areas where TikTok is banned. An effective solution does not exist in absolute prohibitions but in creating robust cross-border structures that protect national interests yet respect the IP ecosystem upon which global digital culture exists.
REFERENCES
- Why Does India Ban Apps Like TikTok: Know Section 69A Of The IT Act? – ApniLaw
- Section 69A in The Information Technology Act, 2000
- Freedom of Press – Article 19(1)(a)
- What is TikTok? | Definition from TechTarget
- Restrictions on TikTok in the United States – Wikipedia
- TikTok banned from UK Parliament over security concerns
- TikTok and EU regulation: Legal challenges and cross-jurisdictional insights
- Addressing Trademark and Copyright Infringement on TikTok – Saunders & Silverstein LLP
