The recent wave of lawsuits against TikTok by over a dozen states and the District of Columbia[1] marks a significant moment in the ongoing scrutiny of social media platforms and their impact on youth mental health. The lawsuits allege that TikTok’s design and algorithm are intentionally addictive, contributing to various psychological harms among young users.

At the heart of these lawsuits is the claim that TikTok’s algorithm is engineered to be “dopamine-inducing,” enticing young users to engage with the platform excessively. Features such as scrolling, autoplay, quantification and display of likes, push notifications, and face filters are highlighted as the mechanisms that contribute to the alleged addiction. The lawsuits allege that these design features knowingly cause mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia among children and teenagers.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James co-led the bipartisan coalition of  Attorneys General that filed separate lawsuits against TikTok for violations of state consumer protection laws. Attorney General Bonta’s action, filed against TikTok Inc., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok Pte. Ltd, TikTok Ltd, ByteDance Inc., ByteDance Ltd, and Does 1-100 on October 8, 2024, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, alleges that TikTok violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code sections 172000 et seq.) and False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code sections 17500 et seq.) in exploiting and harming young users and deceiving the public about the platform and its dangers. Attorney General Bonta alleges that TikTok disseminated or caused to be disseminated false or misleading statements to induce the use of the platform, including misrepresentations regarding its safety features for young users, the effects of face filters, the application of its content moderation policies, age limits, and the psychological and physical harm that the platform may cause to young users. The complaint also alleges that TikTok “subordinated young users’ health and safety to its goal of maximizing profits by prolonging young users’ time spent on its platform” and “knowingly collected, maintained, used, or disclosed the personal information of under-13 aged users of TikTok without providing adequate notice to parents and guardians or obtaining adequate parental consent.” Attorney General Bonta seeks injunctive and monetary relief to address TikTok’s misconduct.

These lawsuits are not the first by Attorneys General against TikTok. In December 2022, the Indiana Office of the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against TikTok in the Superior Court of Allen County, alleging that the platform exposed inappropriate content to minors, including references to alcohol, tobacco, or drug use, sexual content or nudity, and profanity or crude humor, which made the app’s “12-plus” age ratings on the Apple and Google app stores deceptive. In November 2023, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the State’s Amended Complaint failed to allege that the defendants made or directed any of their allegedly deceptive statements or omissions in Indiana or at Indiana users. The Court also held that the State failed to state a claim under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“DCSA”) because downloading the free TikTok app is not considered a “consumer transaction” under the DCSA and TikTok’s labeling of the frequency of inappropriate content as “Infrequent/Mild” instead of “Frequent/Intense” in the app stores is a subjective opinion and not an actionable “representation of fact” under the DCSA. On September 30, 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision as to TikTok, Inc., holding that Indiana’s courts have personal jurisdiction over TikTok, as evidenced by the platform’s millions of users in Indiana and $46 million in Indiana-based income in 2021, among other substantial contacts within Indiana, and that exchanging access to TikTok’s content library for end-user personal data is considered a consumer transaction under the DCSA. Our team will continue to monitor and report on the progress of this litigation.

While much remains to be seen as the TikTok litigation develops, companies offering products with tailored user features should monitor it closely for strategies to minimize risk and exposure going forward. For example, the TikTok litigation to date makes it clear that an implementation of an effective age verification process, monitoring and reporting of underage user accounts, and implementation of content moderation policies may go a long way in defending against liability down the road. Companies should also prepare for potential legislative changes that could impose stricter requirements on user safety, data privacy, and content moderation. Stay tuned for upcoming insights as the Product Perspective, our data privacy team, and our product liability defense teams continue to monitor these developments.

[1] Lawsuits were filed by Attorneys General for the states of California (The People of the State of California v. TikTok Inc., 24CV449203), Illinois (The People of the State of Illinois v. TikTok Inc., Case No. 2024-CH-09302), Kentucky (Commonwealth of Kentucky, ex rel. Russell Coleman v. TikTok Inc, Case No. 24-CI-00824), Louisiana (State of Louisiana v. TikTok, Inc., Case No. 184754), Massachusetts (Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 2484CV02638), Mississippi (State of Mississippi, ex rel Lynn Fitch v. TikTok, Inc., et al., Case No. 25CH1:24-cv-01235), New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin and Cari Fais v. TikTok Inc., Case No. ESX C-000228-24), New York (The People of the State of New York v. TikTok Inc., Index No. 452749/2024), North Carolina (State of North Carolina, ex rel. Joshua H. Stein v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 24CV032063-910), Oregon (State of Oregon ex rel. Ellen F. Rosenblum v. TikTok Inc., et al., Case No. 24CV48473), South Carolina (The State of South Carolina ex rel. Alan Wilson v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 2024CP4006018), Texas (State of Texas v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 24-CV-1763), Vermont (State of Vermont v. TikTok Inc., Case No. 24CV03984) Washington (State of Washington v. TikTok Inc. et al., Case No. 24-2-23100-5 SEA), and the District of Columbia (District of Columbia v. TikTok Inc., Case No. 2024-CAB-006377).