The more interesting question is my eyes is who's going to benefit/hurt from all this and why - US consumers, US/Chinese tech cos, US/Chinese foreign interests? I'd love to hear opinions on this aspect.
Like another comment said, it'll be interesting to see what comes out in discovery.
Where, the company with greater market access, has greater access to profit, and then greater chances of winning. We strip away all other pretenses, it might just boil down to, S(C(us)) < S(C(ch)), which is just a consequence of the rule set. No way forward, when S(C(us)) > S(C(ch)) is the goal, changing the rule set is the only available action.
You're trying to intentionally confuse to tangential concepts, and murdering common sense and logic to do so.
Amtrak is almost entirely owned by the US Government and has taken in 10s of billion of federal dollars to operate, yet you can go out and sue it like any other company despite the protections US Government entities normally have.
Because owning something, and being that thing, are not the same thing... in case you didn't realize. That's actually one of the core justifications of most corporations
-
The Chinese government is not suing the US Government, TikTok is. Sure there's lots of fun power dynamics to dive into over who controls TikTok and so on, but if you can't get the simple fact of who's suing who, you should hush up on the topic.
There are reasons you can oppose this ban, but this isn't a good one of those reasons.
-
The US promises certain freedoms and protections, and TikTok is saying the US is unfairly denying them those freedoms and protections.
China doesn't promise those things to anyone, so there's no grounds to complain they're not being fair.
I mean, imagine this argument applied to other things. "They don't allow <insert liberty> in their home country, why are they suing the US for denying <insert liberty>?"