TikTok urges top NC court to dismiss Jackson’s lawsuit

TikTok and parent company ByteDance are urging North Carolina’s highest court to throw out a lawsuit pursued by state Attorney General Jeff Jackson. A state Business Court judge ruled last summer that Jackson could move forward with the suit claiming TikTok harms children and teens across the state.

TikTok filed a new brief Wednesday asking the the state Supreme Court to dismiss Jackson’s suit.

“In this lawsuit, the North Carolina Attorney General (the ‘State’) seeks to use state consumer-protection law to punish seven out-of-state entities for their alleged operation of the TikTok online entertainment platform (‘Defendants’),” company lawyers wrote. “The State claims that Defendants have caused a youth mental-health crisis in North Carolina by making viewing content on the platform ‘addictive’ to minors and falsely representing that viewing content on the platform is ‘safe’ for minors.”

“Although Defendants are confident that further litigation will show that the State’s case is a meritless overreach — violating federal law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment and lacking support in North Carolina law — the case has a more fundamental defect that requires immediate dismissal now, without the need for further litigation: North Carolina courts lack personal jurisdiction over Defendants,” TikTok’s brief continued.

“A state may exercise either ‘general’ or ‘specific’ jurisdiction over a party. It is undisputed that Defendants here are not subject to general jurisdiction in North Carolina — they are not incorporated and do not have their principal place of business here, and their alleged business activities here are not ‘exceptional,’ ‘continuous,’ or ‘systematic,’” TikTok’s lawyers wrote. “The issue is specific or ‘case-linked’ jurisdiction, i.e., whether the State’s particular claims ‘arise out of’ or ‘relate to’ conduct that Defendants allegedly committed in or specifically targeted toward North Carolina.”

“The State’s claims fail that test,” the brief continued. “None of the alleged ‘harmful’ TikTok features was designed in North Carolina or structured to operate differently here. And none of Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations was made in or specifically directed at North Carolina either. Instead, the State’s theory of jurisdiction relied entirely on TikTok’s general accessibility throughout the country and alleged statements made to the general public. But principles of due process are clear: specific jurisdiction does not exist simply because an online platform is accessible in a state or because a public statement is seen or heard there.”

“Otherwise, any operator of an online platform could be sued anywhere, erasing the limits of personal jurisdiction,” TikTok’s lawyers argued. “And while the State’s jurisdictional theory may seem expedient for the Attorney General here, it is a double-edged sword that ultimately threatens North Carolina and the local business community. If other states adopt the State’s sweeping theory, any North Carolina business that operates online or speaks to the public could be hauled into the court of any state, from Hawaiʻi to California to Texas to New York.”

“For its part, the Business Court exercised jurisdiction under a ‘market exploitation’ theory, citing the large volume of business activity that Defendants allegedly conduct in the State,” the brief added. “This theory is also flawed. It erases the distinction between general and specific jurisdiction; whether a company conducts a large amount of business in a state is the test for general jurisdiction, not specific. And the individual business activities at issue in the court’s market-exploitation theory show no specific targeting of North Carolina either. Rather, they are either alleged nationwide practices, byproducts of TikTok’s nationwide accessibility, or involve the independent actions of third parties, not Defendants. And many activities simply have no relationship to the State’s claims.”

“Defendants do not argue that the State cannot assert its claims anywhere,” TikTok’s lawyers added. “Due process requires simply that they be brought elsewhere, before the courts of a state with general jurisdiction over Defendants.”

Business Court Judge Adam Conrad issued an August court order denying TikTok’s motions to dismiss the case on various grounds.

Conrad also unsealed evidence in the case, including a video that attracted national media attention. The video compiled clips of internal TikTok staff meetings. Staffers raised questions about the app’s impact on teens. TikTok labeled the video “misleading.”

“If the State’s allegations are true, ByteDance has intentionally addicted millions of children to a product that is known to disrupt cognitive development, to cause anxiety, depression, and sleep deprivation, and (in the worst cases) to exacerbate the risk of self-harm,” Conrad wrote in a 29-page order allowing North Carolina’s lawsuit to move forward. “Federal law does not immunize this conduct, the First Amendment does not bless it, and North Carolina’s laws and courts are not powerless to address it.”

Nearly 1 million North Carolinians from ages 13 to 17 used TikTok as of 2023, Conrad noted.

“TikTok features an array of elements allegedly designed to exploit minors’ developmental immaturity and induce compulsive use,” the judge wrote. “TikTok’s home page (coined the ‘For You Page’) feeds each end user videos that are algorithmically selected to maximize engagement. The algorithm, or recommendation system, performs this task by recording the user’s interactions with the app (such as sharing or skipping a video), identifying behavioral patterns, comparing the user’s behavior with others’, and ranking videos as more or less likely to be engaging based on that comparison. This individualized feed is, in the words of ByteDance employees, ‘addictive.’”

The application’s “design choices allegedly make TikTok addictive to minors in much the same way that, say, roulette is addictive to gamblers,” Conrad wrote.

“The State asserts a single claim, based on TikTok’s design and marketing, for unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1. It claims that ByteDance unfairly designed TikTok to be addictive to minors despite knowledge that compulsive use harms them. It also claims that ByteDance deceived the public by misrepresenting TikTok’s safety features and Community Guidelines while falsely assuring that the app is safe for young users,” the judge explained.

Conrad rejected TikTok’s arguments that a North Carolina court has no jurisdiction over the complaint. “ByteDance advertises widely in North Carolina, makes TikTok available here, and fosters ongoing relationships with its app’s users. All this adds up to the active, purposeful exploitation of a market in North Carolina,” the judge wrote.

The judge also rejected TikTok’s claim of federal immunity and First Amendment protection.

“ByteDance’s chief argument — that consumers can make a free and informed decision to use or not use TikTok — does not reckon with the complaint’s allegations,” Conrad wrote. “The consumers in this scenario are minors, not mature adults. As alleged, ByteDance designed TikTok to exploit the unique vulnerabilities that accompany youthful immaturity, inducing addictive, compulsive use and depriving minors of a free choice.”

“Worse yet, ByteDance did so allegedly knowing that addiction causes social and psychological harms to minors. Taken as true, these allegations outline practices that are ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious’ under section 75-1.1,” Conrad wrote.

Then-Attorney General Josh Stein filed suit against TikTok in 2024. Current AG Jeff Jackson filed a motion in March 2025 defending the state against the motion to dismiss the case.

“TikTok urges top NC court to dismiss Jackson’s lawsuit” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.