TikTok tries to dodge ‘addictive’ design claims in North Carolina

The case may not move forward if the state’s highest court decides it doesn’t have jurisdiction over ByteDance and TikTok.RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — TikTok argued before North Carolina’s highest court Wednesday that the state’s claims against it should be quashed.North Carolina and then-Attorney General Josh Stein — now the state’s governor — sued the social media company in October 2024, claiming the company induces and encourages compulsive use through autoplay, infinite scroll and content that disappears after a short period of time. The platform is engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices that impact North Carolina consumers, according to the state.In court Thursday, Special Deputy Attorney General Joshua Abram argued TikTok has a virtual presence in the state, and so there is jurisdiction — the ability of a court to oversee a case — in North Carolina courts. The state detailed how ByteDance — TikTok’s parent company — has millions of contracts with North Carolina residents that allow it to harvest user data and serve them geotargeted ads.“Due process is fundamentally about fairness, and it is fundamentally fair to hail ByteDance here,” Abram told the state Supreme Court justices.“ByteDance continuously and deliberately exploits North Carolina’s market with TikTok, and the state’s claim relates to that very product,” he added. “The Supreme Court thought Ford had a heavy presence. TikTok dwarfs that. If you poll this courtroom or any classroom, you will find more TikTok users than Ford drivers.”Associate Justice Richard Dietz pushed Abram to determine if comments and conduct by company officials outside of the state would impact jurisdiction.“Foreign companies like ByteDance get the benefits and privileges of doing business here,” Abram said. “Our courts will enforce their contracts, protect their property and give them access to our effective markets. And when they deliberately exploit their markets, in return they must submit to our courts for claims related to their in-state conduct.”“The state is protecting its children and its families with its statutes,” Abram added.Jon Hacker, representing ByteDance and TikTok, argued Wednesday the companies don’t belong in the state’s courts. The companies’ activity isn’t customized to users in the state nor is jurisdiction triggered by users’ decision to use TikTok, he argued.“TikTok did not design the challenged features in North Carolina or tailor them in any way for North Carolina users,” he said. “TikTok likewise did not make the allegedly deceptive statements in the state of North Carolina or target them specifically to anyone in North Carolina.”TikTok isn’t selling a physical product in the state, nor has it purposefully instigated business in the state, Hacker said. Instead, the company has a platform that is internationally accessible. TikTok is indifferent to where the user receiving push notifications is, Hacker argued, and hasn’t gone out of its way to contact North Carolina residents. Any advertising in the state was general advertising that it replicates on a national level, and just because there are users in the state doesn’t mean state courts have jurisdiction, he said.The companies didn’t make a conscious decision to do business in North Carolina, Hacker argued, and for the court to have jurisdiction, the companies would have to purposefully conduct business in the state.“There’s really no argument that TikTok is anything other than an internationally accessible website that North Carolina residents can use and interact with,” Hacker emphasized.The state can’t haul it into state court, ByteDance argues in briefings, because it isn’t subject to personal, general or specific jurisdiction in the state.Meanwhile, the state insists ByteDance has systematically exploited the North Carolina market by collecting data from millions of adult and juvenile users and spending millions advertising TikTok. The company designed the app to keep children scrolling, providing it with more personal data and profiting off of targeted ads, the state said. ByteDance designed the app to encourage compulsive use among children, the state claims in its brief, misrepresented its safety features and content moderation, and broadcasted it as safe for use by children while being aware of the harm of excessive use.“ByteDance argues that because it does business almost everywhere, it can be held accountable practically nowhere,” North Carolina claims.The state survived TikTok’s motion to dismiss the case in August 2025, when a business court judge sided with current Attorney General Jeff Jackson and allowed the case to proceed forward. The app is marketed locally and has hundreds of thousands of teen and child users, Special Superior Court Judge Adam Conrad said in his opinion, which adds up to “the active, purposeful exploitation of a market in North Carolina.”The justices didn’t say when they planned to rule. Representatives for the state and ByteDance did not reply to a request for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads