State of Nevada v. Tiktok, Inc., et al.

Date: 11-07-2025

Case Number: 141 Nev.Adv.Op. 51

Judge: Not Available

Court: The Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada

Plaintiff's Attorney: Nevada Attorney General's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada commercial litigation lawyers represented the Plaintiffs seeking a writ of prohibition or, alternatively, mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in a consumer protection action.

The State of Nevada filed a complaint against petitioners TikTok, Inc., and its related entities asserting, as is relevant here, violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The State alleged that TikTok knowingly designed its social media and short-form online video platform to addict young users, thus inflicting various harms on young users in Nevada, and knowingly made misrepresentations and material omissions about the platform's safety. TikTok moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and immunity from liability.

* * *

Legal issue Does a social media platform face specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada and is it immune under the CDA § 230 and the First Amendment from state consumer protection claims regarding harmful design features and misrepresentations?
Headnote

JURISDICTIONAL LAW. PERSONAL JURISDICTION. The case evaluates whether a social media platform, TikTok, is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada based on its targeted data collection and marketing activities directed at residents within the state.

INTERNET LAW. COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (CDA) IMMUNITY. The judgment assesses whether the Communications Decency Act § 230 shields TikTok from liability for its platform's design features and alleged misrepresentations under state consumer protection law, concluding that such immunity does not apply to the claims filed by the State.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. FIRST AMENDMENT. The court examines whether the First Amendment protects TikTok from claims regarding its alleged misrepresentations and platform design, deciding that the claims do not impinge on expressive activities safeguarded by the First Amendment.
Key Phrases Consumer protection action. Personal jurisdiction. Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Communications Decency Act immunity. Unconscionable trade practices.

Outcome: The district court denied the motion, determining that it could properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok based on conduct purposefully directed at Nevada and that neither the Communications Decency Act (CDA), codified as 47 U.S.C. § 230, nor the First Amendment immunized TikTok from the State's NDTPA claims. TikTok now petitions for writ relief, challenging both rulings.

Relief denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: