The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday to consider a critical jurisdictional question that will decide whether the state can move forward with its civil lawsuit against TikTok and its parent corporation, ByteDance.
State officials initiated the legal action after accusing the digital entertainment company of purposefully engineering addictive platform mechanics that ensnare underage users. The state’s complaint further contends that ByteDance engaged in deceptive practices by falsely marketing the video-sharing platform as safe for children and teenagers.
Rather than diving straight into the underlying allegations regarding user harm, the proceedings before the state's highest judicial body centered on whether North Carolina courts hold proper legal jurisdiction over the China-based tech conglomerate and its subsidiary.
The appeal reached the state Supreme Court after ByteDance sought to dismiss the litigation in the North Carolina Business Court, asserting that local authorities lacked personal jurisdiction over the business. After lower judges rejected that argument—concluding that the enterprise maintained substantial ties with resident users—ByteDance appealed the denial.
During the morning session, Jonathan Hacker, the attorney representing both TikTok and ByteDance, told the justices that the video service functions as a uniform, nationwide network. He argued that simply having local residents register for and use the software does not equate to the company deliberately directing its business conduct toward North Carolina.
Elaborating on the platform's algorithmic design, Hacker explained that the feed is curated for individual preferences rather than geographic borders. He maintained that personalizing content to an account holder does not establish jurisdiction, contrasting it with a hypothetical website specifically customized around local identity, such as a Chicago-run site aimed at fans of North Carolina sports that directly targeted the state.
Hacker told the court that the service is tailored to the individual user rather than to the state itself, acknowledging that an operation specifically built around local themes would likely face local jurisdiction if a consumer suffered harm.
State attorney Josh Abram challenged that defense, arguing that TikTok has created deep, continuous commercial relationships across the state. Abram pointed out that ByteDance regularly collects digital data from local citizens, delivers localized advertisements and push notifications, and generates substantial revenue from consumers living in North Carolina.
The state argued that the company cannot systematically monetize local residents and simultaneously assert immunity from the state's legal and regulatory authority. State attorneys emphasized that North Carolina minors installed the software within the state's borders, engaged with the app locally, and suffered the alleged mental health and developmental harms at home.
Abram told the justices that ByteDance purposefully promoted the platform within North Carolina, executed millions of agreements with residents, and distributed targeted advertisements and automated alerts to young users. He maintained that more than one million local children and adolescents did not download the platform by chance, stressing that the engagement was neither fortuitous nor accidental.
Following a brief rebuttal from TikTok’s legal team, the justices adjourned the session without issuing an immediate ruling. The bench will review the submitted legal briefs and oral arguments before delivering a formal written decision at a later date.
The high-profile hearing comes amid broader public discussions regarding the addictive architecture of modern social media networks and their psychological effects on youth. Child development and digital advocacy groups have increasingly raised alarms about algorithmic recommendation engines designed to retain user attention for extended periods.
Mick Tobin, a North Carolina native, Duke University graduate, and co-founder of the Young People's Alliance, noted that platform algorithms often cause young users to spend far more time scrolling than intended. He explained that losing track of time disrupts daily routines and exposes adolescents to comparative content that can undermine their self-worth.
Tobin emphasized that expecting adolescents to moderate their own screen time is unrealistic when commercial applications are intentionally optimized to maximize user engagement. He stated that the public discourse must move beyond solely blaming individual self-control, calling the dynamic an unfair battle for young people.
The legal clash also mirrors trends documented in official public 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 platforms multiple times per day, while fewer than one-quarter engaged in regular daily physical activity.
(0)