President Trump’s administration assured major tech firms they could ignore a federal ban on TikTok, according to letters recently published by Tony Tan, a Google shareholder. Tan obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The letters reveal how the Trump administration directed companies to continue supporting TikTok, stating that executive orders provided immunity from the law.
Now, Tan is suing Google’s parent company, Alphabet, arguing the company’s compliance with those directives exposes shareholders to massive legal risk. He claims a future administration could reverse Trump’s order and prosecute companies retroactively, triggering billions in potential liabilities.
Legal Immunity by Executive Order
Attorney General Pamela Bondi sent the letters to Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and others on April 5, 2025. They state that companies providing services to TikTok during the 75-day extension ordered by Trump are not violating the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. One letter sent to Apple said, “Apple Inc. has committed no violation of the Act… and may continue to provide services to TikTok… without incurring any legal liability.”
The Department of Justice claimed it would relinquish all claims against these companies for the relevant period. The justification relied on the president’s authority over national security and foreign policy.
Shareholder Pushback and Legal Concerns
Tan released a statement to 9to5Mac warning that the extensions “have no basis in the law” and that companies are exposing their shareholders to “ruinous legal liability.” His lawsuit against Alphabet seeks board records that explain why the company restored TikTok after the executive order. He believes the decision could result in damages worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Legal experts are also alarmed. In The New York Times, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, a professor at the University of Minnesota, called Trump’s refusal to enforce the ban “breathtaking.” He said the Constitution requires the president to enforce the law, not set it aside.
Zachary Price, a law professor at the University of California, said this case goes beyond past use of executive power. “This is a much bigger deal in that it is just nuking the whole statute instead of tweaking certain provisions,” he told the Times.
The Supreme Court upheld the TikTok ban in January. Despite that, President Trump extended the non-enforcement period multiple times. The letters from Bondi told companies they had not broken the law and would not face liability. She also stated that the Justice Department was giving up future claims.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor, said this move exceeds actions by any recent president. He noted that the Constitution does not give the president power to cancel laws passed by Congress.
For now, the companies have followed the president’s direction. But Tan’s lawsuit may force a legal reckoning. If a future court rejects Trump’s authority to override federal law, tech firms and their shareholders could face the consequences. Tan is taking action now to prevent that outcome.