Per Curiam
U. S. ___ (2024).
II
A
At the threshold, we consider whether the challenged provisions are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Laws that directly regulate expressive conduct can, but do not necessarily, trigger such review. See R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382–386 (1992). We have also applied First Amendment scrutiny in “cases involving governmental regulation of conduct that has an expressive element,” and to “some statutes which, although directed at activity with no expressive component, impose a disproportionate burden upon those engaged in protected First Amendment activities.” Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U. S. 697, 703–704 (1986).
It is not clear that the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct with an expressive component. Indeed, the Act does not regulate the creator petitioners at all. And it directly regulates ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc. only through the divestiture requirement. See §2(c)(1). Petitioners, for their part, have not identified any case in which this Court has treated a regulation of corporate control as a direct regulation of expressive activity or semi-expressive conduct. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37–40. We hesitate to break that new ground in this unique case.
In any event, petitioners’ arguments more closely approximate a claim that the Act’s prohibitions, TikTok-specific designation, and divestiture requirement “impose a disproportionate burden upon” their First Amendment activities. Arcara, 478 U. S., at 704. Petitioners assert—and the Government does not contest—that, because it is commercially infeasible for TikTok to be divested within the Act’s 270-day timeframe, the Act effectively bans TikTok in the United States. Petitioners argue that such a ban will burden vari-
