TikTok loses battle in Nevada Supreme Court, paving way for trial
Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld a lower-court ruling that denied TikTok’s petition to dismiss a civil case brought by Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford. The suit, filed in January 2024, accuses TikTok of designing its product to keep young users engaged — using features such as autoplay, endless scroll, quantified popularity and push notifications — and of collecting and monetising user data in ways that harm minors’ mental, physical and privacy interests.
The court rejected TikTok’s attempts to avoid trial by arguing lack of personal jurisdiction in Nevada, Section 230 immunity and First Amendment protection for its content-organisation decisions. The opinion makes clear the Communications Decency Act does not provide blanket immunity if a platform is accused of designing products that are intrinsically harmful. The ruling clears the path to a trial in Nevada.
Key Points
- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of TikTok’s motion to dismiss the state’s lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
- Nevada’s complaint alleges TikTok deliberately designed features to maximise user engagement and data collection, causing harm to young people.
- The court ruled Section 230 does not automatically shield the platform where the claim targets the product’s design rather than purely third-party content.
- TikTok argued lack of personal jurisdiction, Section 230 immunity and First Amendment protections; the court rejected those arguments for now.
- The Attorney General emphasised Nevada will hold companies accountable if they do business in the state and harm its residents; nearly 49% of Nevadans were active TikTok users as of mid-2022, per the court opinion.
Context and relevance
This case sits at the intersection of tech regulation, consumer protection and youth mental-health concerns. A Nevada trial could produce factual findings and legal precedents that influence other state-level suits and regulatory approaches to social platforms, especially around product design, addictive features and data monetisation. The decision also contributes to the ongoing national debate over the scope of Section 230 and platform liability.
Why should I read this?
Short version: the court just told TikTok it can’t dodge a Nevada trial — so if you care about kids’ online safety, data privacy, or how regulators are starting to push back on Big Tech, this matters. It could shape how other cases play out and what rules platforms have to follow. Worth a quick skim at least.
Author style
Punchy: This isn’t a routine filing — it’s a potential turning point. If you follow tech law, regulation or youth online safety, read the detail: the way the court frames Section 230 and product-design claims could ripple beyond Nevada.