A federal judge in Missoula heard arguments Thursday on Montana’s law to ban TikTok in the state.
State attorneys were pressed over previous statements made by the Attorney General that appear to contradict the state’s legal defense.
Montana’s solicitor general argued Thursday that the state’s ban on TikTok is a valid consumer protection statute, saying the state has an interest in guarding residents’ data privacy from alleged access by the Chinese government. TikTok is owned by a Chinese parent company.
However, in a September interview with Purdue University’s Krach Institute, Attorney General Austin Kndusen, whose office wrote the law, suggested a different motivation:
"The issue here really is one of national security. We really have exposed ourself [sic]. We’ve allowed this Trojan horse into our country."
District Judge Donald Molloy pressed state attorneys to reconcile the difference between the public and legal defenses of the ban, but appeared unimpressed with the state’s answer, saying it only left him more confused.
A central point of TikTok’s legal argument against Montana’s ban is that the state is attempting to claim powers over foreign affairs policy and national security that are reserved for the federal government.
Before the scheduled January 1 effective date of the ban, the court will decide whether to temporarily block it while litigation continues.