RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) - North Carolina's lawsuit against TikTok and ByteDance, claiming that the app used coercive features to attract young users, will move forward after a state business court denied a request to dismiss.

TikTok and its parent company Bytedance had argued North Carolina lacked personal jurisdiction and is trying to impose liability for conduct protected under federal law. The app said it isn't responsible for the speech of users, and the design features of the app are used to present user content.

The social media giant also argued it was protected under the First Amendment and the state failed to make a claim of specific violations of unfair and detective trade practices that allows it to receive relief. 

But Special Superior Court Judge Adam Conrad disagreed and declined to dismiss the case in the opinion issued Tuesday.

TikTok has jurisdiction in North Carolina, he said, as it markets the app in the state and has in-state users, including hundreds of thousands of teens and children. It regularly sends push notifications to users in the states, and receives data from in-state users, he said.  

"All this adds up to the active, purposeful exploitation of a market in North Carolina," he said. 

North Carolina and former Attorney General Josh Stein - now the state's governor -  sued the social media company in October 2024. They claim the company induces and encourages compulsive use through autoplay, infinite scroll and content that disappears after a short period of time. 

The suit is over product design, not simply TikTok's position as a publisher, Conrad said, and federal law does not "does not relieve internet publishers 'from all potential liability' or provide 'an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the internet.'"

The state claims that TikTok's design and marketing uses unfair or deceptive trade practices. It says the platform falsely advertises that it imposes a 60-minute limit on teens and misleads families about the effectiveness of a safety control option, and also failed to tell parents that restricted mode allows teens to see violence, gore and profanity. 

"ByteDance insists that this is an attempt to hold it liable for failing to identify and remove violent, sexual, and racist content. It is not," Conrad wrote. "But it does not shield them from liability for breaching their promises or misrepresenting their content-moderation activities." 

The plaintiffs also accuse TikTok of knowing that the purported addictiveness of the app is dangerous for children, but have "closed their eyes" and rejected recommended safety improvements because they "view user addiction to be positive for their business model."

"Neither of the state's theories seeks to hold ByteDance liable for monitoring, altering, or removing user content, or for failing to do those things. The thrust of the unfairness theory is that ByteDance purposely designed TikTok to be addictive to minors," Conrad wrote. "This theory has more in common with products liability than publisher liability, resting as it does on an alleged duty not to design and offer a product that endangers a vulnerable population." 

The platform's algorithm does not convey a message or expressive, protected speech, the judge said, shooting down the company's First Amendment claim. And the state clearly made a claim, he said, as "the allegedly deceptive statements are not vague, indefinite or puffery." 

"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 said. "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."

Conrad also on Tuesday unsealed several exhibits in the case, including video footage suggesting that some TikTok officials questioned the app's effect on children.

"The reason why kids watch TikTok is because the algo[rithm] is really good," said Alexandra Evans, who previously worked as TikTok's director of safety public policy for Europe, said in unsealed materials uploaded by the state. "But I think that we need to be cognizant of what it might mean for other opportunities. And when I say other opportunities, I literally mean sleep, and eating, and moving around the room and looking at somebody in the eyes." 

14 states and the District of Columbia have sued the platform under similar claims, with Minnesota joining in on Tuesday. 

The app is also weeks away from a potential ban, as the September 17 deadline set by President Donald Trump looms and despite the White House's new account on the platform, which launched Tuesday.

The sale-or-ban law initially went into effect on January 19 - and TikTok briefly went offline for U.S. residents -  but returned after Trump signed an executive order delaying its enforcement. The ban has been delayed three times since.

Representatives for the attorney general and the defendants did not immediately reply to a request for comment. 

Source: Courthouse News Service