It is one thing to set a deadline for the potential ban of TikTok in the US – but it is another to make it happen.
China-owned ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, has repeatedly said it will not abide by congressional legislation that obligates it to sell the platform to a US owner by January 19 or face a ban in one of its largest markets.
According to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Application Act, if ByteDance does not sell TikTok by this date, app stores in the US will have to remove it.
Apple, Amazon and Google have already been told by legislators to prepare for that reality. The law is worded in a way that penalises distributors rather than users for accessing the app after the deadline.
Yet as illustrated during Friday's Supreme Court hearing focused on the constitutionality of a TikTok ban, there seems to be some ambiguity as to whether the app will actually 'go dark' on January 19.
"What happens on January 19 if you lose this case – can you spell that out?" Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked TikTok's lawyer, Noel Francisco.
Mr Francisco replied: "At least, as I understand it, we go dark. Essentially, the platform shuts down."
Mr Kavanaugh asked Mr Francisco to expand on his answer.
"The app won't be available in the app stores, that's at a minimum," he said. "But in addition, what the act says is that all of the other types of service providers can't provide service either ... so essentially what they're going to say is that, 'you know, I think we're not going to be providing the services', so it's going to stop operating."
Although there were occasional moments of optimism for TikTok's lawyers at the Supreme Court, for a majority of the hearing, most of the justices seemed sceptical of ByteDance's claims that the law forcing a TikTok sale was unconstitutional.
The justices have the option of potentially issuing an injunction or stay regarding the law that would delay the deadline, especially in light of the inauguration of president-elect Donald Trump on January 20.
"It is possible that come January 20, 21, 22, we might be in a different world," said Mr Francisco. "Again, that's one of the reasons why I think it makes perfect sense to issue a preliminary injunction here and simply buy everybody a little breathing space."
But Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general arguing in favour of the legislation before the Supreme Court, hit back at the notion of an injunction.
"I think this court doesn't have any basis to enter a temporary injunction unless it thinks petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim," she told the justices.
"And, to be honest, I think there is no argument to be made that you should find that likelihood of success. This is an act of Congress. This isn't some unilateral action by the executive branch but it actually was action in parallel between the Executive and Congress, where Congress took action to close up a loophole in some of our laws."
While the world waits for the Supreme Court to decide TikTok's fate in the US, there is ample speculation as to what will happen to the usability of the app should the law be upheld and an injunction not be issued by the Supreme Court.
Some have said that although TikTok might be removed from app stores, the platform may continue to work, while others have suggested that ByteDance, flexing its muscle, might pull the plug on the app's usability in the US and hope a backlash from users prompts legislators to change their minds.
At the heart of this fast-approaching deadline is an argument that goes back to 2020, when Mr Trump, who was president at the time, issued an executive order emphasising user data concerns related to TikTok because its parent company was based out of China.
TikTok and ByteDance have repeatedly dismissed those concerns and denied that any US user data was in danger of being compromised.
The company moved much of its user data to US-based servers run by Oracle, but ultimately critics and elected officials have pointed out that because ByteDance is subject to the laws of China, there is still a national security risk.
The ongoing concerns prompted the US Congress to pass legislation in April – signed into law by President Joe Biden – that sought to force ByteDance to sell TikTok to US owners, or face a ban.
Mr Trump, however, has changed his stance on TikTok to some extent.
During his recent campaign for the White House, he joined the platform and quickly gained millions of followers. He later posted videos saying only he could save the platform from a ban.
In a rare move, the president-elect's team filed a brief to the Supreme Court, asking for it to delay the law, with hopes that he could negotiate a solution that would keep the app working in the US.
Some have speculated that Mr Trump would push for ByteDance to sell TikTok to various US investors and entrepreneurs who have been trying to gather the necessary funds to buy the platform, but thus far ByteDance has indicated it has no plans of selling.
In a recent interview with Fox News, entrepreneur and Shark Tank star Kevin O'Leary, who has joined forces with billionaire Frank McCourt to try to buy TikTok, said it would be "good news" if the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, in part because he thinks ByteDance might agree to sell eventually.
The US is not alone in its worries about data security in relation to TikTok's parent company.
India banned the app over similar concerns back in 2020. TikTok was also briefly banned in Nepal, though that policy was later reversed by a deal between ByteDance and regulators in the country.
