TikTok, the social media juggernaut known for its viral dances and short-form videos, is once again making headlines, but this time for all the wrong reasons. The company has come under fire for its controversial use of a non-disparagement clause in employee stock options agreements, sparking a heated debate about free expression and corporate accountability.

According to a scathing report by Fortune, TikTok shareholders risk losing their entire holdings if they dare to criticize the company in any way. This includes both current and former employees, who could see their Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) revoked for speaking out against TikTok or its practices.

The revelation has sent shockwaves through the tech industry, with critics questioning TikTok’s commitment to free speech and transparency. TikTok, which has positioned itself as a champion of Americans’ right to free expression, now finds itself under scrutiny for stifling dissent and silencing its own employees.

The issue has caught the attention of industry observers and social media users alike, with many expressing outrage over TikTok’s heavy-handed approach to employee rights. Techmeme, a prominent tech news aggregator, highlighted the story on Twitter, drawing widespread condemnation of TikTok’s actions.

Responding to the backlash, some Twitter users expressed disbelief and concern over TikTok’s use of the non-disparagement clause. Many questioned the fairness of such a policy and called for greater transparency from the company.

While TikTok has yet to issue a formal response to the controversy, the company may face mounting pressure to reconsider its stance on the non-disparagement clause. As the debate rages on, all eyes will be on TikTok and its handling of this latest scandal.

In a landscape where transparency and accountability are increasingly valued, TikTok’s use of a non-disparagement clause raises troubling questions about corporate culture and the balance between protecting company interests and fostering open dialogue. As stakeholders and observers await further developments, the debate over TikTok’s approach to employee rights and free expression is likely to intensify in the days and weeks ahead.

Amidst the controversy, Patrick Spaulding Ryan, a former lead technical program manager at TikTok, is putting the company’s non-disparagement clause to the test. Ryan, who owns tens of thousands of company shares, filed a complaint with California’s Department of Industrial Relations’ Retaliation Unit after TikTok failed to include him in its latest program to buy back shares from current and former employees.

Ryan alleges that TikTok excluded him from the buyback offer because he criticized the non-disparagement clause on LinkedIn. If successful, his complaint could have far-reaching implications for shareholder law and corporate accountability.

As TikTok navigates this latest crisis, it faces mounting pressure to address concerns about its treatment of employees and its commitment to free expression. The outcome of Ryan’s complaint could shape the future of employee rights in the tech industry and beyond, making it a case to watch closely in the months ahead.