Despite Domestic Ownership, TikTok Faces Consumer Protection Suits
Though a deal was reached allowing TikTok to continue operating in the U.S., the social media platform still faces consumer protection suits from states accusing it of harming children, said Fox Rothschild lawyer Bradley Risinger in a blog post this week.
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.
For example, there is litigation against the platform in Nevada (see 2511070028), Virginia (see 2510240047), Minnesota (see 2508190023) and New York (see 2506270008), among other states.
North Carolina's unfair and deceptive trade practices suit against TikTok “recently survived [a] spirited motion to dismiss," Risinger noted. The state's main claims were that the company running the platform “'unfairly designed TikTok to be addictive to minors despite knowledge that compulsive use harms them,’” and it “misrepresented alleged safety features and their benefits for young users.”
A state court found “'features that induce compulsive use’ are not expressive activity protected under the First Amendment,” the lawyer said, with the judge reasoning “it was ‘hard to discern any expressive activity’ where an algorithm acted as a content-neutral delivery engine as opposed to” recommending videos “based ‘on the semantic nature of the content itself.’”
Given that “numerous other states had alleged similar consumer protection claims,” the North Carolina court found the state adequately pled unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, Risinger said. The court noted, "Designing an app to induce addictive, compulsive use by minors comfortably qualifies as an unfair practice.”
The judge also ruled the platform’s claims that “users could decide whether to use TikTok, and how often” were “an ill fit” to the complaint’s allegations, the blog post said.
The North Carolina court also followed recent trends that limited the use of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunity for platforms like TikTok. Instead, it chose to view the platform as a product designer instead of a publisher, which Risinger said was “worth noting.”
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law requiring the Chinese-based parent company of TikTok to divest the social media platform (see 2501170051), which President Donald Trump then asked the DOJ to delay enforcing (see 2501210067). In June, Republican senators sought enforcement of the law (see 2506060046).