North Carolina’s top court weighs key questions in TikTok case

TikTok faces a court test

State of North Carolina, ex rel. Jeffrey N. Jackson v. TikTok Inc., et al. was argued before the North Carolina Supreme Court on Sept. 9, 2026. The hearing focused on whether North Carolina courts have jurisdiction over the case.

Then-Attorney General Josh Stein filed North Carolina’s lawsuit on Oct. 8, 2024, as part of a coordinated bipartisan effort in which attorneys general filed separate enforcement actions against TikTok. North Carolina alleges TikTok’s design and marketing harmed minors and misrepresented safety protections, allegations the defendants contest.

Why North Carolina wants this?

State of N.C. v. TikTok Inc. centers on jurisdiction. North Carolina says its courts can hear the case because TikTok serves residents, collects information, sends notifications, advertises there, and maintains ongoing contacts across the state.

State officials say those activities connect the company directly to people in North Carolina. TikTok responds that its challenged design choices and statements were part of a nationwide business model, not specifically aimed at North Carolina.

TikTok says the case belongs in California

In the Sept. 9 hearing, TikTok attorney Jonathan D. Hacker argued that North Carolina courts lack jurisdiction over the defendants. He said the challenged features were not designed or specifically targeted in North Carolina.

Hacker argued that the dispute concerns a nationally available service and told the justices that North Carolina should instead pursue the case in California, where TikTok has a U.S. base and where the company says the relevant conduct occurred.

A lower court rejected TikTok’s dismissal bid

On Aug. 19, 2025, Special Superior Court Judge Adam M. Conrad denied TikTok and ByteDance’s motions to dismiss the case. He found that ByteDance had extensive, purposeful contacts with North Carolina.

Conrad cited TikTok’s marketing, in-state users, data collection, targeted advertising, and push notifications. He said TikTok was an interactive application involving an ongoing two-way exchange of information, rather than a passive website.

The justices question online connections

Associate Justice Richard Dietz questioned how internet companies interact with users across state lines. He noted that many websites collect cookies and focused on the nature and extent of TikTok’s interactions with North Carolina residents.

Dietz presented a hypothetical involving a person in California calling North Carolinians as part of a fraud scheme. The example tested how direct contact with residents might differ from simply making an online service available nationwide.

Why user activity matters here?

TikTok users in North Carolina can view, post, and interact with short-form videos, while the platform also sends notifications and receives information from in-state users. The state argues these continuing contacts support jurisdiction.

TikTok argues that its service is nationally and internationally available rather than specifically created for North Carolina. The company says broad online availability alone does not establish jurisdiction.

Little-known fact: 37% of U.S. adults said they used TikTok in 2025, up from 21% in 2021. Among adults under 30, usage was 63%.

A local promotion raised questions

Justice Allison Riggs questioned TikTok’s claim that it paid little attention to users’ locations. She pointed to an event involving North Carolina’s PTA president that promoted TikTok as a safe platform for minors.

Riggs also referenced safety materials sent to North Carolina parents through the PTA. TikTok responded that the efforts were part of a national program, giving the justices another example of activity that crossed state lines.

The state points to data

Special Deputy Attorney General Joshua Abram said ByteDance has millions of contracts with North Carolina residents. He argued those relationships allow the company to collect user data, build engagement, and deliver geo-targeted advertising directly to people across the state.

That argument ties the lawsuit to activity occurring inside North Carolina. The state says users are directly affected by the company’s practices, while TikTok maintains that its nationwide operations do not establish jurisdiction in North Carolina.

Child safety claims remain unsettled

The lawsuit includes allegations about young users, including claims that TikTok designed features to encourage extended use. North Carolina also says the company gave parents misleading impressions about protections for minors.

Those allegations have not been resolved by the Supreme Court hearing. The justices are considering jurisdiction, meaning they are deciding if the state court has authority to hear the dispute before reaching the underlying claims.

The ruling could affect platforms

The ruling could have broader significance because the case involves how personal-jurisdiction rules apply to an online platform serving users across state lines. The North Carolina Business Court relied on the company’s contacts with users and the state.

A ruling for TikTok could strengthen arguments that general online availability does not automatically create jurisdiction everywhere. A ruling for North Carolina could support a broader view when a company deliberately maintains substantial contacts with a state.

Meta settled a separate lawsuit

Days before the TikTok hearing, Meta agreed to pay North Carolina up to $645 million to settle a different lawsuit. The state had accused Meta of designing products to hook children and collecting their data.

That settlement does not decide the TikTok dispute. Still, it shows North Carolina’s broader effort to challenge major technology companies over alleged effects on young users, while the TikTok case continues through the state courts.

The Supreme Court now has the ball

The North Carolina Supreme Court has not announced when it will decide the jurisdiction question. Until the justices rule, the lawsuit against TikTok and ByteDance remains active, with the trial date still uncertain.

The bigger issue reaches beyond one app. Courts nationwide are facing questions about how traditional jurisdiction rules should work online, especially when companies serve millions of people while operating across many states.

TikTok rules are changing for families. See what Nebraska’s new approach means for parents in 2026.

One ruling could shape lawsuits

North Carolina’s dispute with TikTok could help clarify how state courts handle companies serving residents through online platforms. The decision may show how much online contact matters when a company operates nationwide but has users in individual states.

For everyday users, the legal fight may seem distant, but its impact could reach other apps. Future cases may rely on how judges describe notifications, data sharing, advertising, and connections between platforms and state residents.

Curious about how TikTok is being used beyond entertainment? See how LAPD is turning to TikTok and Reddit to attract new recruits.

Do you think North Carolina should be able to take TikTok to court? Share your thoughts in the comments.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Why Miami’s TikTok scene feels like stepping into a different world
• New York City public schools impose one-year AI ban through eighth grade
• Viral TikToks allege Walmart is charging too much for meat