Nevada Supreme Court: Deceptive Practices Case Against TikTok Continues
TikTok must face a case accusing it of violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA) by deploying addictive social media algorithms, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday, siding with an earlier district court decision.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
In January 2024, Nevada accused TikTok of violating NDTPA with algorithms designed to keep users -- including children -- on the app. TikTok then profited by harvesting and selling user data, while continuing to insist its platform is safe, the complaint said.
TikTok moved to dismiss the complaint in Dec. 2024, arguing Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction to bring claims, and that the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempted the suit. The state district court denied those claims. Following that, TikTok petitioned the state's high court for writ relief.
The relief TikTok sought “is an extraordinary remedy,” said Justice Elissa Cadish, who authored Thursday's opinion. She also noted that “this court typically declines considering petitions that challenge orders denying motions to dismiss,” but “TikTok's petition meets the criteria for writ review,” so the high court considered it.
But like the district court, the Supreme Court found that the Nevada attorney general had jurisdiction to bring the lawsuit.
Additionally, neither the First Amendment nor Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protect TikTok from facing the state’s allegations. Nevada’s “complaint did not seek to place TikTok in the shoes of third-party content creators,” so Section 230 does not apply, the judge said.
In addition, the opinion found that Nevada didn't “seek to curtail or alter the mix of third-party content that TikTok publishes,” but instead “purports to challenge the design features that TikTok implements to keep users on the platform as long as possible,” which doesn't implicate the First Amendment.
Moreover, the First Amendment doesn't protect "inherently misleading commercial speech,” so the state’s misrepresentation and omission claims can stand as well.
“TikTok has failed ... to evade justice in Nevada courts. Again,” Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) said in a press release Friday. “We will never stop working to hold social media companies accountable for the harm they have done to Nevada’s youth.”