The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Saturday that would force TikTok’s parent company to either sell the service within a year or cease operating in the U.S.
It follows a similar bill from last month, which has a six-month deadline.
The legislation was included as part of a larger foreign aid package, which has broad congressional support for Ukraine and Israel and is a priority for President Joe Biden.
The House had previously passed a standalone bill with a shorter, six-month selling deadline in March, but the modified measure now goes to the Senate with a nine-month timeline and a possible additional three months if a sale is in progress. However, legal challenges from TikTok could extend this timeline even further, as the company has indicated it would likely go to court to block the law, arguing that it would violate the First Amendment rights of its millions of users.
TikTok has been actively lobbying against the legislation, encouraging its millions of U.S. users to contact Congress and voice their opposition. The app’s CEO, Shou Zi Chew, has vowed to continue fighting and advocating for the platform and its users.
Lawmakers from both parties, along with intelligence officials, have expressed concerns about the potential for Chinese authorities to access American user data or influence content on the platform. For what it’s worth, TikTok claims to have never given Americans’ user data to any Beijing officials and has promised not to do so even if asked.
The company has had some success in previous legal battles over its U.S. operations, with federal courts blocking executive orders and state laws that sought to ban the app. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have also backed TikTok, arguing that a ban would infringe upon the free speech rights of millions of Americans.
Despite TikTok’s efforts to sway public opinion through TV ads and user outreach, the House passed the bill with a vote of 360-58. Some lawmakers, like Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California, voted against the legislation, believing there could have been less restrictive ways to address concerns about the company without resorting to a total ban or threatening free speech.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.