The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pivotal legal challenge that will determine whether state officials can proceed with a major consumer protection lawsuit against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance. The legal battle centers on allegations that the tech enterprise engineered intentionally addictive software features to hook young users while simultaneously misleading parents and the public by deceptively promoting the video application as a safe platform for minors.
At the heart of the proceedings before the state's highest judicial bench is the threshold question of legal jurisdiction. ByteDance has asked the justices to dismiss the action on the grounds that North Carolina state courts do not have judicial authority over the global company, maintaining that TikTok operates as a singular, nationwide digital service that does not specifically direct its commercial operations at the state of North Carolina.
The substantive complaint filed by the state claims that the social media platform was built with design choices specifically intended to create psychological dependency among children and teenagers. State attorneys argue that ByteDance’s alleged deceptive marketing practices masked these digital risks, causing direct emotional, mental, and behavioral harm to young North Carolina residents who use the application on a daily basis.
The case reached the state Supreme Court following a previous ruling from the North Carolina Business Court. In those initial proceedings, ByteDance filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The lower court rejected that request and permitted the state’s case to move forward, determining that the extensive and continuous interactions between the company and residents within the state constituted sufficient legal ground for local jurisdiction. ByteDance subsequently appealed that finding to the state supreme bench.
During the morning oral arguments, Jonathan Hacker, the attorney representing both TikTok and ByteDance, told the assembled justices that operating an online network accessible across the country does not equate to purposeful targeting of a specific state. Hacker argued that the platform treats all users across the United States uniformly, meaning that the presence of local account holders does not grant North Carolina courts authority over out-of-state corporate entities.
To illustrate his legal argument, Hacker offered a comparison regarding geographic intent, contrasting general feed personalization with state-specific business models. He maintained that if an organization based in Chicago operated a dedicated "Tarheel Nation" website tailored specifically to the interests of North Carolina residents, that operation would likely subject the publisher to local jurisdiction if a consumer alleged harm. However, Hacker insisted that TikTok’s algorithm simply tailors material to individual user preferences rather than to the state of North Carolina as a distinct market.
In response, state attorney Josh Abram presented arguments on behalf of North Carolina, contending that ByteDance deliberately maintains substantial commercial ties within the state. Abram argued that ByteDance cannot systematically extract corporate profit and manage digital relationships with local residents while simultaneously seeking total immunity from the state's legal framework and court system.
Abram emphasized that the platform has entered into millions of binding contracts with North Carolina consumers, collects their private personal data, and generates significant revenue from these local accounts. He further pointed out that more than one million children and adolescents in North Carolina did not join the platform through random chance or isolated circumstance, but were instead reached directly through ByteDance’s intentional choices to deliver localized push notifications and geo-targeted commercial advertisements within the state's borders.
The state attorney underscored that youth downloaded the software while physically inside North Carolina, engaged with the platform locally, and sustained the alleged injuries on state soil. Following a brief rebuttal opportunity granted to TikTok's counsel, the justices adjourned the session and left the bench, concluding the formal hearing without handing down an immediate ruling. The court is expected to review the oral presentations alongside submitted written briefs before publishing a formal written decision at a later date.
The high-profile legal dispute arrives amid broader national scrutiny from youth advocates and mental health researchers regarding how modern digital platforms are deliberately structured to capture and sustain human attention. Advocates argue that the litigation in North Carolina reflects systemic concerns over business models that prioritize maximizing user screen time above consumer welfare.
Mick Tobin, a North Carolina native, Duke University graduate, and co-founder of the Young People's Alliance, noted the acute daily difficulties adolescents encounter when interacting with algorithmic feeds. Tobin explained that users frequently open the platform intending to spend just five minutes, only to find themselves scrolling for thirty minutes or longer, losing complete track of time and disrupting their daily routines, sleep, and educational schedules.
Tobin further observed that extended time spent on the application often leads directly to negative emotional outcomes, as an endless sequence of tailored content prompts teens to compare themselves to others, reevaluate their self-esteem, and second-guess their personal worth. He emphasized that the broader conversation must move beyond the concept of individual willpower, arguing that a fifteen-year-old child cannot realistically be expected to put down a device when competing against sophisticated platforms engineered specifically to keep them permanently connected.
The scale of juvenile engagement with digital platforms is underscored by recent state health data. According to the 2025 North Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey, nearly three-quarters of high school students throughout the state reported logging onto social media networks multiple times every day. In stark contrast, fewer than one in four surveyed high schoolers reported participating in daily physical activity.
Child welfare professionals warn that such prolonged virtual exposure carries measurable consequences for adolescent development. Neil Harrington, the Senior Director of Policy and Research for the advocacy organization NC Child, pointed to research linking frequent digital engagement to adverse youth mental health outcomes, highlighting findings that adolescents who spend more than three hours each day on social media platforms face heightened risks to their overall well-being.
(0)