How Google and Meta spent millions in lobbying before TikTok was hit with ban bill in Congress

Congress passed legislation to force TikTok to divest from its parent company ByteDance - or face a U.S. ban - at record speed in March. 

Meanwhile, TikTok's main competitors Meta, Google and YouTube were working furiously behind the scenes to make sure nothing stood in the way of that, new disclosures suggest. 

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, dumped millions into well-connected lobbyists to infiltrate Washington and knock out their top competitor.  

The bill, introduced on March 5 and passed on March 13, was born out of concerns about China stealing Americans' data and information.

A version of the bill that became law passed both chambers and was signed by the president in April - starting the clock on a nine-month countdown to what TikTok claims amounts to a 'total ban.'

Congress passed legislation to force TikTok to divest from its parent company ByteDance - or face a U.S. ban - at record speed in March

In the first quarter of 2024 - from January through March when the bill was introduced - Meta spent a staggering $7.6 million on lobbying, according to newly released disclosures. 

In the last three months of 2023, it spent $4.6 million.

But the company covered its tracks and did not specifically state the TikTok bill itself on its disclosure. 'China' is listed under lobbying issues related to trade on the form. 

The governmental entities lobbied on 'China' include the Senate, House, Commerce Department, State Department, White House, U.S. Trade Representative, Federal Trade Commission, Justice Department, and the office of the Director of National Intelligence. 

Google, meanwhile, spent $4 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2024, $3 million of which went to its in-house lobbying team. Disclosures show the company lobbied specifically on H.R. 7521 - the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. 

Big Tech has long had an aggressive lobbying operation in the nation's capital - Google parent company Alphabet spent $14 million dollars to persuade lawmakers to pursue legislation that is favorable to them in 2023. 

Meta spent $19.3 million in 2023, but the company spent more money in the first quarter of this year than it had in any other quarter on record. 

Google denied pushing lawmakers to pass the bill. 'We did not take a position on the bill,' spokesperson José Castañeda told DailyMail.com. 

Meta also told DailyMail.com it did not lobby on the bill. The company said the increase in lobbying expenditures was due to increased compensation as the company has performed well recently.  

'The increase in Meta's lobbying expenditures is due principally to operating expenses, including changes to the timing of the biannual compensation structure and an elevated stock price,' spokesperson Daniel Roberts said. 

'Google and Meta's reasons for lobbying on the TikTok divestment are cynical and political — if national security were the only motivation then surely they'd be taking a look at their own companies, which harvest Americans' data and auction it off to China, court CCP leaders, and shutter the programs designed to mitigate foreign election interference,' Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, told DailyMail.com.

'Lawmakers now need to turn a critical eye to Google and Meta, because if all Congress does is force divestment on TikTok ... it will be a massive handout to Big Tech.'   

ByteDance also had its biggest-spending quarter on lobbying in the first three months of this year, though its $2.8 million dwarfed in comparison to tech competitors. 

Meta , the parent company of Facebook and Instagram , and Google , which owns YouTube , dumped millions into well-connected lobbyists to infiltrate Washington and knock out their top competitor

After India last week banned 59 apps and services developed by Chinese firms including TikTok, Facebook immediately swept in and announced it was rolling out its 'Reels' in the country, a video feature that is similar to TikTok. 

The company has a long history of copying its competitors' features. Instagram's 'stories,' photos and videos that disappear within 24 hours, came years after Snapchat did the same thing. 

Instagram rolled out 'Reels' in 2020, and they've proven to be popular, but don't suck viewers in for the 54 minutes on average that TikTok users spend on that app. Meta's algorithm is not nearly as addictive or eerily personalized as TikTok. The algorithm is exactly what ByteDance says it is unwilling to surrender to the U.S. 

Days ago the platform sued the U.S. government and accused it of violating First Amendment rights by allegedly trying to 'silence the 170 million Americans' who use the social media application. 

Former President Donald Trump warned that banning TikTok would make Facebook more powerful ahead of the divestment vote (though that warning came after he tried to do the same thing in 2020).

'Just so everyone knows, especially the young people, Crooked Joe Biden is responsible for banning TikTok. He is the one pushing it to close, and doing it to help his friends over at Facebook,' Trump wrote on Truth Social after the bill passed in Congress. 

Starting January 19, the new law would prohibit app stores from offering the TikTok app, while barring internet hosting services from supporting it unless ByteDance divests it. 

According to the suit, the Chinese government 'has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States.'

It also said TikTok has spent $2 billion to implement measures to protect the data of U.S. users and made additional commitments in a 90-page draft National Security Agreement developed through negotiations with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

That agreement included TikTok agreeing to a 'shut-down option' that would give the U.S. government the authority to suspend TikTok in the United States if it violated some obligations,' according to the suit.