TikTok has launched a long-awaited legal fight to stop its Chinese owner being forced to sell the short video platform’s US operations, arguing it violates Americans’ rights to free speech.

TikTok and Chinese parent ByteDance were told in April they had until January next year to divest TikTok in the US or face the prospect of the app being banned in the country.

Legislation, signed by President Joe Biden, gives the US government the power to demand such sales on national security grounds.

Money latest: Interest rate held at 16-year high in blow for borrowers

The concern in this case centres on perceived risks that data on TikTok’s 170 million American users could be harvested by Beijing and that TikTok could be compelled by the Chinese authorities to spy on them.

It has insisted this is not about trying to ban TikTok but Thursday’s filing contested that was the inevitable conclusion if the new law was to stand.

ByteDance said a sale was “not possible technologically, commercially, or legally”.

The filings also argued the law violates Americans’ rights to free speech under the constitution and revealed a spend of $2bn on efforts to protect US user data.

Under a document released at the same time, the pair committed to giving the US government power – described as a “kill switch” to suspend TikTok in the country if it failed to adhere to a series of national security and data commitments.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear arguments on lawsuits filed by TikTok, ByteDance
and TikTok users on 16 September.

“This law is a radical departure from this country’s tradition of championing an open Internet, and sets a dangerous
precedent allowing the political branches to target a disfavoured speech platform and force it to sell or be shut down,” ByteDance and TikTok said in their application.

“This administration has determined that it prefers to try to shut down TikTok in the United States and eliminate a
platform of speech for 170 million Americans, rather than continue to work on a practical, feasible, and effective
solution to protect US users through an enforceable agreement,” TikTok lawyers said.

Read more from business:
Interest rate held for seventh time in a row
Sainsbury’s sells banking arm to NatWest
Care home operator Four Seasons plots sale

They contend that if the national security law culminates in a ban on TikTok, it should be applied to other Chinese-owned entities across the US.

The legal fight is expected to become an election issue as former president Donald Trump, who recently joined TikTok, has spoken out against a ban.

Much may depend on the public reaction to the legal process ahead, with millions of younger voters likely to be upset if a potential TikTok outage seems likely.

The Bank of England has held interest rates at 5.25% for the seventh time in a row.

The decision to maintain the cost of borrowing comes despite official figures yesterday which revealed inflation had fallen to the Bank’s target of 2% for the first time in nearly three years.

However, the move by its Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to continue the current 16-year high in rates had been widely expected by economists and financial markets.

Seven members of the panel voted to hold, while the remaining two backed a 0.25 percentage point cut.

Governor Andrew Bailey said policymakers “need to be sure that inflation will stay low and that’s why we’ve decided to hold rates at 5.25% for now”.

Following the decision, investors now think the probability of the Bank making a rate cut in August is 44% – versus 56% for another hold.

But the market thinks there is a 71% probability of a reduction in September.

Some members of the MPC said “more evidence of diminishing inflation persistence was needed” before they could cut rates.

However, two members of the committee – Swati Dhingra and Dave Ramsden – again voted for a reduction, arguing that inflation looked set to remain at normal levels.

The Bank began steadily increasing rates in December 2021 as part of efforts to bring down inflation – which soared in the wake of the COVID pandemic and amid the war in Ukraine.

The recent spike in the pace of price rises peaked at 11.1% in October 2022 – the highest level since 1981.

While inflation has now come back down, officials remain concerned and fear it could tick up again later this year.

Wednesday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that services inflation – which covers sectors such as the hospitality industry – had only fallen to 5.7% in May, less than expected.

The data prompted financial markets to push back their expectations of the Bank’s first rate cut of the year.

Read more from business:
Sainsbury’s sells banking arm to NatWest
Care home operator Four Seasons plots sale
Taylor Swift shows ‘to boost economy by £300m’

The ONS said on Wednesday that the UK’s consumer prices index (CPI) rate of inflation, for the year to May, was the lowest since July 2021.

Officials said the drop was largely down to falling food prices, although the cost of motor fuel rose slightly.

The prospect of a rate cut this week was dealt a blow last month when wage growth – a driver of inflation – came in higher than expected.

Economist Ruth Gregory, from research firm Capital Economics, said she still believed there was a “good chance” of a rate cut in August – and that rates could drop to 3% by next year.

She added: “There was never much chance that the Bank would cut rates at this month’s meeting, given recent upside surprises on services CPI inflation and wage growth and the upcoming election.”

However, Ms Gregory said the language in the Bank’s latest minutes hinted that the MPC was willing to make a move in August, and that the decision to hold had been “finely balanced” among its members.

The Federation of Small Businesses described the Bank’s move as “disappointing”.

National chair Martin McTague said: “The high plateau rates are currently stuck at is now undermining growth as small firms struggle to access affordable finance to help them expand.

“Inflation is now back on target and holding off a cut in the base rate until a future date risks snuffing out tentative signs of a recovery in GDP [gross domestic product], with the flat growth in April a warning sign.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

The future of new oil and gas projects in the UK has been thrown into doubt following a landmark decision by the Supreme Court.

The court concluded the environmental impact of emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered in planning applications for new extraction projects – not just the impacts of the emissions produced in extracting the oil.

The case hinged around an oil drilling project at Horse Hill in Surrey, granted planning permission by Surrey County Council in 2019.

Local campaigner Sarah Finch argued the environmental impact of the project should have taken into account not just the carbon emissions created in extracting the oil, but the environmental impact when they are burned.

She challenged an earlier Court of Appeal ruling dismissing her case, having also lost a legal battle in the High Court.

But the Supreme Court justices ruled on Thursday three to two in favour of allowing her appeal, and quashed the decision to grant planning permission for the site.

Speaking after the ruling, former Surrey resident, Ms Finch said she was “absolutely over the moon” adding that it was a “welcome step towards a safer, fairer future”.

In his judgement, Lord Leggatt concluded: “In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide that it was not necessary to assess the combustion emissions.”

He went on: “Given the agreed fact that all the oil produced would be refined, I see no reason why environmental impacts resulting from the process of refining oil should not in principle fall within the scope of the EIA for the extracting of oil.”

The court did not conclude that fossil fuel emissions were unlawful, only that they must be considered in an environmental impact assessment – a tool used in the planning process to assess the effects of a project on the environment.

In relation to the Horse Hill project Justice Leggatt said: “It is not disputed that these emissions, which can easily be quantified, will have a significant impact on climate. The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems plain to me that they are.”

Given the burden of scientific evidence of the negative environmental impact of carbon emissions, the ruling that the downstream impacts of burning extracted oil and gas must be considered by anyone applying to extract them is significant.

Read more:
Just Stop Oil activists target Stonehenge
World breaching key 1.5C threshold for past year
Europe swelters in heatwaves as UK remains cool

The decision, from the UK’s highest court, could have immediate implications for other fossil fuel extraction projects facing legal challenge by environmental campaigners.

West Cumbria Mining (WCM), the company behind a coal mine in Whitehaven approved by the government in 2022, clearly felt this could be a possibility as their lawyers intervened in this latest case.

WCM did not respond to a request for comment on why it did so, but, if the campaigners’ appeal against the Surrey oil site wins next month, it could mean “that you have to completely reassess whether that coal mine in Cumbria can happen at all”, according to barrister Sam Fowles.

“It is extremely difficult to overstate the significance of this case,” Mr Fowles, who specialises in planning and environment law at Cornerstone Barristers, said.

It has the potential to trigger the “beginning of the end of… new fossil fuel extraction in the UK going forward”, he added.

The ruling could also have a bearing on offshore oil and gas projects such as the giant Rosebank oil and gas field in the North Sea.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

While planning rules offshore are different, EIAs are also required.

Charles McAllister, director of industry group UK Onshore Oil and Gas, called it “incontrovertible” that the UK needs some oil and gas beyond 2050, “even with huge growth in renewables”.

“It’s a case of where we got it from, not if we need or not,” he said.

Developers, or future governments, could argue that the economic or energy security benefits of extracting fossil fuels could outweigh the environmental impacts of burning them.

However, the ruling opens a new avenue for climate campaigners to challenge future oil, gas or coal projects in the UK.

The government is due to make a decision imminently on Rosebank.