DUBLIN, Ireland: TikTok has secured permission from the High Court to challenge a 530 million-euro fine imposed by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC), which the company claims is "penal" in nature and infringes on its legal rights.

The fine, announced on April 30, 2025, stems from the alleged unlawful transfer of European users' data to China, via remote access from Chinese-based personnel to data stored in the U.S. and Singapore.

In addition to the fine, the DPC ordered TikTok to suspend such data transfers unless it brought its operations into compliance with EU transparency regulations within six months.

At a High Court hearing this week, Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted TikTok to proceed with a judicial review of the DPC's decision. She placed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the fine and related orders, pending the outcome of the review.

TikTok Technology Limited (Ireland) and TikTok Information Technologies UK Limited are bringing the legal challenge. TikTok Ireland, headquartered in Dublin, is a wholly owned subsidiary of TikTok UK. The respondents in the case are the DPC, the State of Ireland, and the Attorney General.

TikTok is seeking to have the DPC's decision quashed, arguing that the fine amounts to a criminal sanction and violates constitutional protections. The company further contends that the sections of the Data Protection Act relied upon by the DPC are invalid under the Irish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In documents filed with the court, TikTok acknowledges that both its Ireland and UK entities are "joint controllers" of European user data, but says that TikTok UK is ultimately responsible for paying the administrative fines — 485 million euros and 45 million euros respectively — which it argues are "criminal or penal" due to their nature and scale.

TikTok also asserts that the fines breach Article 37.1 of the Irish Constitution, which governs the delegation of judicial powers. It argues that the fines and the limited right of appeal amount to an unjust and disproportionate interference with its constitutional rights to private property under Articles 40.3 and 43.

The company further claims that the DPC's decision failed to provide the independent and impartial hearing required under the ECHR, asserting that such a significant penalty must meet higher procedural safeguards typically afforded in criminal cases.

Justice Gearty approved TikTok's application to pursue the judicial review and adjourned the matter until October.