A Kentucky state court has allowed the Commonwealth’s consumer protection lawsuit against TikTok to move forward, denying the company’s motion to dismiss, per Kentucky-based WKYT.

On February 20, Scott County Circuit Court Judge Kathryn H. Gabhart ruled that Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman’s complaint states legally sufficient claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA). 

The ruling permits the case to proceed to discovery and further litigation.

Background of the Lawsuit

Coleman filed the lawsuit on October 8, 2024, alleging that TikTok violated state consumer protection law through the design and marketing of its platform.

The complaint identifies several product features, including TikTok’s algorithmic recommendation system, continuous or “infinite” scrolling, autoplay functionality, user engagement tools such as likes and comments, and push notifications. According to the complaint, these features may contribute to excessive or compulsive use among younger users.

The state also alleges that TikTok made incomplete or misleading public statements regarding its safety features, screen-time management tools, and content moderation practices. Kentucky seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution.

“TikTok was specifically designed to be an addiction machine, targeting children who are still in the process of developing appropriate self-control,” Coleman said when announcing the lawsuit.

Kentucky is among a bipartisan group of attorneys general from more than a dozen states, including California, New York, and Illinois, that have filed separate enforcement actions concerning youth safety and platform design.

Jurisdiction and Immunity Arguments

TikTok sought dismissal on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction, federal immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and First Amendment protections.

On jurisdiction, the court found that TikTok entered into contracts with hundreds of thousands of Kentucky residents, sold targeted advertising to users in the state, and collected geolocation data from users located there. The court concluded these activities constituted sufficient contact with Kentucky to allow the case to proceed in state court.

Regarding Section 230, TikTok argued that the federal statute shields online platforms from liability related to user-generated content. The court rejected that argument, finding that Kentucky’s claims focus on the platform’s own design decisions and marketing representations rather than the content of individual user posts.

“The Commonwealth’s theory of liability does not depend upon the contents of any particular video or post,” the ruling states.

On First Amendment grounds, the court distinguished the case from Moody v. NetChoice, a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing state laws that regulate content moderation practices. The court concluded that Kentucky’s claims concern commercial design and marketing practices rather than the communicative content of user speech.

Consumer Protection Claims

Under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the complaint asserts both unfairness and deception claims.

On unfairness, the court found the allegations sufficient at this stage that TikTok intentionally designed aspects of its platform in a way that could exploit developmental vulnerabilities in younger users.

On deception, the court determined that the complaint identifies specific executive statements concerning time optimization and content moderation, and alleges knowledge of their falsity, supported by internal documents.

The ruling allows these claims to proceed.