NC Supreme Court Hears TikTok's Personal-Jurisdiction Appeal in State Youth-Safety Suit
On Sept. 9, 2026, justices questioned lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance, who want the court to reverse a 2025 Business Court ruling that let Attorney General Jeff Jackson's case go forward in North Carolina.
Two Lawyers, One Question That Isn't About TikTok's Harm
On Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2026, seven justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court sat down to hear arguments about TikTok. They did not talk about whether the app hurts kids. They talked about geography — whether a North Carolina courtroom is even the right place to ask that question at all[1][2].
The case is State of N.C. v. TikTok Inc., and it has been alive since October 2024, when then-Attorney General Josh Stein filed it as part of a bipartisan wave of state lawsuits against the app[1][2]. Jeff Jackson took over as attorney general in January 2025 and now carries the case forward[1][2]. But before anyone argues about addictive design or deceptive safety claims, the court has to settle something narrower: does North Carolina have the legal power to hear this case at all?
The Mailbox Test
That narrower question has a name: personal jurisdiction. Under the U.S. Constitution, a state court can only order a company around if that company deliberately reached into the state to do business there. Simply being visible on the internet everywhere isn't automatically enough — a company has to have "purposefully directed" its conduct at that specific state.
TikTok's lawyer, Jonathan Hacker, told the justices the company "did not design the challenged features in North Carolina or tailor them in any way for North Carolina users," and didn't aim its safety claims at anyone in the state specifically[2][3]. Special Deputy Attorney General Joshua Abram pushed back with a different picture: ByteDance "actively marketed TikTok in our state," signs millions of contracts with North Carolinians, and sends "geo targeted ads to our children, push notifications as well[2][3]." Think of it like junk mail. A flyer stuffed in every mailbox in America is different from a personalized letter mailed to your specific address. The state says TikTok's algorithm and push notifications are the personalized letter. TikTok says its features are the same for everyone everywhere, so no single state can claim it as a target.
That fight already happened once, one level down. In August 2025, Business Court Judge Adam Conrad refused to dismiss the case. He ruled that ByteDance has "extensive, purposeful contacts with North Carolina," and that TikTok engages in a "two-way exchange of information across state borders on a massive scale[4][5]." His point was that old rules built for a "passive website" — one that just sits there and anyone can visit — don't fit an app that pushes content back at specific users in specific places. That same order also rejected TikTok's attempt to use Section 230, the federal law that shields platforms from liability over user content, as a defense against claims aimed at design features like infinite scroll and autoplay[1][5]. TikTok appealed that ruling, which is what brought both sides to the Supreme Court chamber on Wednesday[1][3].
A Rule That Cuts Both Ways
Here's where the case gets bigger than TikTok. The state's business lobby, through the NC Chamber Legal Institute, filed a brief supporting TikTok — not because it has a view on child safety, but because of what a loss could mean for everyone else[6]. TikTok's own brief argues the state's "market exploitation" theory of jurisdiction "would expose every North Carolina business and resident with an online presence to lawsuits anywhere in the country[6]."
The logic is reciprocal. Whatever counts as "enough contact" to let North Carolina sue an out-of-state company, other states can turn around and use against North Carolina companies. A software firm in Charlotte or a manufacturer in Winston-Salem with a national website and targeted ads could, under the same theory, get sued in all 50 states. For a business, that's not an abstract worry — it's legal bills, insurance costs, and the risk of fighting cases far from home.
The state's answer is that this isn't about ordinary websites. It's about a company that, in the state's telling, built relationships with North Carolina parent-teacher associations to vouch for the app's safety. Justice Allison Riggs raised exactly that during the hearing, pointing to TikTok "using its relationships with North Carolina PTAs" to hold itself out as safe for kids[1][3]. Justices Richard Dietz and Trey Allen pressed TikTok's lawyer on the algorithm and push notifications specifically — asking whether reaching into a phone in someone's pocket in Raleigh is different from just existing on the internet[1][3].
What Neither Side Disputes
Strip away the arguments and a few things aren't contested by anyone. TikTok has users in North Carolina. It does send them targeted ads and notifications. No court has yet looked at the actual evidence behind the state's claim that TikTok's design harms young users — the case is roughly two years old and still stuck at this threshold stage[1][3].
And TikTok's North Carolina fight is not happening in isolation. Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday filed a similar suit on Aug. 12, 2026[7]. In August 2026, TikTok and ByteDance also reached a reported $400 million federal settlement over children's privacy violations[7]. A dismissal in North Carolina wouldn't end the company's legal exposure elsewhere — it would just remove one front in a fight playing out in multiple states at once.
One more fact shifts the ground under the "Chinese-owned app" framing that shows up in a lot of coverage of this case. In January 2026, TikTok's U.S. operations moved to a new entity, TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, roughly 80% owned by U.S. and allied investors including Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX. ByteDance kept about a 20% stake, along with continued control over TikTok Shop and advertising. That restructuring predates this week's hearing by eight months, which matters for how readers should weigh any story that still calls TikTok simply "Chinese-owned."
Reading the Coverage
Outlets covering the hearing split along predictable lines, though most stuck close to the facts. Carolina Journal, funded by the free-market John Locke Foundation, gave TikTok's business-liability warning its own prominent headlines and repeatedly called the case "Jackson's lawsuit" — even though Josh Stein filed it back in 2024, before Jackson took office[1][2][6]. NC Newsline, part of the progressive-aligned States Newsroom network, used a neutral headline but leaned its body copy toward the bench questions that cut against TikTok, giving less space to the company's fair-warning argument[3].
Courthouse News Service ran the headline "TikTok tries to dodge 'addictive' design claims," which frames a standard jurisdictional defense as if it were evasion, even though the body of that story stayed even-handed[9]. The starkest miss came from Hoodline, an AI-assisted local aggregator, whose headline claimed the court was weighing "whether TikTok knowingly hooked kids on the app" — a question the justices did not actually take up this week, since the hearing was about jurisdiction, not the merits[1][3].
What Happens Next
The justices gave no timeline for a ruling[1][3]. If they side with TikTok, the case gets dismissed and North Carolina loses the case other states are still pursuing. If they side with the state, it goes back to the Business Court for discovery — meaning TikTok would have to start handing over internal documents about how it built the features at the center of the fight[1][4].
Either way, the ruling won't just settle TikTok's fate in North Carolina. It will set the rule every future internet-jurisdiction fight in the state gets measured against — most of which will involve companies far less controversial than TikTok, and defendants who could just as easily be the North Carolina businesses the Chamber is trying to protect[6].
Summary
On Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the state's lawsuit against TikTok and its Chinese-owned parent company, ByteDance[1][2]. The justices are not deciding whether TikTok harmed children. They are deciding a narrower question first: whether North Carolina courts have the power to hear the case at all[1][3].
That power is called personal jurisdiction. Under U.S. constitutional rules, a state court can only order a company around if the company deliberately reached into that state to do business. Merely being available everywhere on the internet is not automatically enough. TikTok's lawyer, Jonathan Hacker, told the justices the company "did not design the challenged features in North Carolina or tailor them in any way for North Carolina users," and did not target its allegedly deceptive safety statements at anyone in the state[2][3]. Special Deputy Attorney General Joshua Abram answered that ByteDance "actively marketed TikTok in our state," signs millions of contracts with North Carolinians, and sends geo-targeted ads and push notifications to children here[2][3].
The case began in October 2024, when then-Attorney General Josh Stein sued as part of a bipartisan multistate push against ByteDance over app features alleged to hook young users, and over safety claims made to parents[1][2]. Attorney General Jeff Jackson, who took office in January 2025, now carries it. In August 2025, Business Court Judge Adam Conrad refused to dismiss the case, finding ByteDance had "extensive, purposeful contacts" with the state[4][5]. TikTok appealed that jurisdiction ruling to the state Supreme Court[1][3].
The genuine dispute is about where the line sits for internet companies. TikTok and the NC Chamber Legal Institute warn that the state's theory would let any state sue any business with a website, which they say would boomerang onto North Carolina companies[6]. The state and the judge below say a platform that pushes personalized ads and notifications to millions of specific residents is not a passive website — it is doing business here[4][5]. The court gave no timeline for a decision[3].
The Event
The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2026, in State of North Carolina v. TikTok Inc.[1][2]. Attorney Jonathan Hacker argued for TikTok and ByteDance that the companies are not subject to North Carolina courts in this case; Special Deputy Attorney General Joshua Abram argued for the state that they are[2][3]. Justices Richard Dietz, Trey Allen and Allison Riggs questioned the lawyers about TikTok's algorithm, its push notifications, and its outreach to North Carolina parent-teacher groups[1][3]. The companies are asking the court to reverse an August 2025 North Carolina Business Court order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court did not say when it will rule[1][3][4].
Undisputed Facts
- Then-Attorney General Josh Stein filed North Carolina's suit against TikTok and ByteDance in October 2024, as part of a bipartisan multistate wave of state attorney general actions[1][2].
- Jeff Jackson became North Carolina attorney general in January 2025 and is now the named plaintiff pursuing the case[1][2].
- On Aug. 19, 2025, Business Court Judge Adam Conrad denied the companies' motion to dismiss, ruling in State of N.C. v. TikTok Inc., 2025 NCBC 47, that ByteDance has "extensive, purposeful contacts with North Carolina"[4][5].
- The same 2025 order held that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act does not shield the companies from state claims aimed at design features such as infinite scroll and autoplay[1][5].
- TikTok's brief to the state Supreme Court argues the state seeks a "market exploitation" theory of jurisdiction that "would expose every North Carolina business and resident with an online presence to lawsuits anywhere in the country"[6].
- The NC Chamber Legal Institute, the litigation arm of the state's largest business lobby, filed an amicus curiae brief in the case[6].
- The Sept. 9, 2026 argument concerned jurisdiction, not whether TikTok's design harmed children; no court has yet ruled on the merits of the state's allegations[1][3].
- Other states have brought parallel suits, including Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday's action against TikTok and ByteDance filed Aug. 12, 2026[7].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Kill the case before discovery
- For TikTok, jurisdiction is the cheapest possible exit. Win it and no one ever reads the company's internal research on teen use. That is worth far more than the dollar value of this one suit, because the same documents would surface in Pennsylvania and every other state case[3][6][7].
- Reciprocity of jurisdiction rules
- Whatever contacts North Carolina deems enough to sue an out-of-state firm, other states can apply to North Carolina firms. This is why the state's business lobby lines up against its own attorney general here, with no view on whether TikTok harmed anyone[6].
- Doctrine built for a pre-platform internet
- The 'passive website' framework courts still cite was written for static pages. A recommendation algorithm that selects content per user, in a specific place, does not fit either the old 'passive' or 'active' box. Judge Conrad said so directly. Courts are being asked to update a rule, not just apply one[4][5].
- Bipartisan political safety of the target
- Suing a Chinese-owned app over child safety carries almost no partisan cost in either direction. The original 2024 filing was part of a bipartisan multistate action, which is why the fight has moved onto procedural ground rather than political ground[1][2].
Material realityMillions of North Carolinians have TikTok on their phones, and the app sends them targeted ads and notifications whether or not a court says that counts as doing business in the state[4][5]. No court has yet examined the evidence about whether TikTok's design harms young users; the case is roughly two years old and still at the threshold stage[1][3]. TikTok faces the same allegations in multiple other states, including a Pennsylvania suit filed Aug. 12, 2026, and reached a reported $400 million federal settlement over children's privacy in August 2026 — so a North Carolina dismissal would not end its legal exposure, only shrink it[7]. Whatever the justices decide will bind every North Carolina court in future internet jurisdiction fights, most of which will involve defendants far less unpopular than TikTok, whose U.S. operations were transferred in January 2026 to TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, roughly 80% owned by U.S. and allied investors including Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX, with ByteDance retaining about a 20% stake and continued control over TikTok Shop and advertising.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe state's core claim is that TikTok is not a bulletin board that North Carolinians happen to find. It is a business that reaches into the state on purpose, every day. Abram told the justices ByteDance "actively marketed TikTok in our state," enters into millions of contracts with North Carolinians, and "sends geo targeted ads to our children, push notifications as well"[2][3]. The analogy the state's side presses: a company that mails personalized offers to millions of households in a state has done business there, whatever the address on its letterhead. Judge Conrad accepted a version of this, writing that TikTok engages in a "two-way exchange of information across state borders on a massive scale," so the old rule that a "passive" website creates no jurisdiction does not fit[4][5]. On the safety claims, Justice Riggs pointed to TikTok "using its relationships with North Carolina PTAs" to hold the app out as safe for children — conduct aimed at a specific state audience[1][3].
WhyJackson inherited a multistate case and campaigned as a consumer-protection attorney general. A win here keeps a high-profile suit alive under state law, where the state controls the forum and the remedy; a loss ends it before any discovery into TikTok's internal research[1][2].
Impact on themIf the court reverses, the state's case is dismissed and North Carolina loses leverage other states retain. If it affirms, the case returns to the Business Court for discovery on the merits, and TikTok faces document production about its design choices[1][4].
Frames it asTikTok's strongest argument is not that it has no users in North Carolina — it concedes it does. It is that the specific conduct being sued over did not happen in or aim at North Carolina. Hacker told the court TikTok "did not design the challenged features in North Carolina or tailor them in any way for North Carolina users," and "did not make the allegedly deceptive statements in the state of North Carolina, or target them specifically to anyone in North Carolina"[2][3]. Under long-standing due-process rules, jurisdiction is supposed to attach to conduct "purposefully directed" at the forum state, not to nationwide conduct that lands everywhere. Second, the company argues the state's rule has no stopping point: a "market exploitation" theory "would expose every North Carolina business and resident with an online presence to lawsuits anywhere in the country"[6]. The principle underneath is fair warning — a company should be able to predict which courts can haul it in.
WhyWinning on jurisdiction ends the case without ever litigating what TikTok knew about youth harm, and without discovery. It also builds a defense precedent the company can cite in the other state suits it faces[3][7].
Impact on themAn adverse ruling means merits litigation in a state forum with a Section 230 defense already rejected below, and internal-research discovery[1][5]. ByteDance also faces parallel exposure elsewhere, including a reported $400 million federal children's-privacy settlement announced in August 2026[7].
Frames it asTheir argument is that the state is trading a short-term win against an unpopular defendant for a long-term rule that hurts local employers. Jurisdiction rules are reciprocal: whatever North Carolina says is enough to drag an out-of-state company here, other states will apply to North Carolina companies. A Charlotte software firm or a Winston-Salem manufacturer with a national website and targeted ads would, under the state's theory, be suable in all 50 states. That is not a hypothetical cost — it is legal-defense budget, insurance pricing, and settlement pressure in unfamiliar courts[6].
WhyThe Chamber's institutional interest is predictable, narrow liability exposure for its members, regardless of the merits of the child-safety claims[6].
Impact on themA broad affirmance sets state precedent binding on every future jurisdiction fight in North Carolina courts, including ones where NC firms are defendants elsewhere[6].
Frames it asThe court's job here is bounded. It is reviewing whether the Business Court correctly applied constitutional minimum-contacts law to an interactive platform. Members of the bench pressed both directions: Dietz and Allen asked whether the algorithm and push notifications amount to reaching into the state to do business, while the company's fair-warning argument asks the court not to write a rule broader than the case requires[1][3].
WhyThe court, which currently holds a Republican-appointed majority, has an institutional stake in a jurisdiction test that lower courts can actually apply — one that neither immunizes national platforms nor makes every website suable everywhere[1][3].
Impact on themIts ruling will govern personal jurisdiction over internet companies in all North Carolina courts and will be cited by other state supreme courts facing the same question[4][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.8
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABC11 | U.S. center (Disney-owned local broadcast) | 2 | "North Carolina Supreme Court hears TikTok appeal" | Straight hearing write-up with both lawyers quoted. Local-TV compression means the jurisdiction mechanism itself is barely explained, which quietly favors the intuitive side — protecting kids — over the side whose argument needs the doctrine spelled out. |
| Law360 | U.S. center, legal trade (LexisNexis-owned, practitioner audience) | 2 | "AG Urges NC Justices To Keep Jurisdiction Over TikTok Suit" | Names the procedural posture precisely and avoids merits language. Framing the state as the party "urging" puts the burden visually on the AG, though TikTok is the appellant. Paywalled, which limits public checkability. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (States Newsroom nonprofit network, largely progressive-aligned funding) | 3 | "NC Supreme Court weighs whether state can pursue TikTok lawsuit" | The headline is neutral, but the body leads with bench questions that cut against TikTok — Riggs on PTAs, Dietz and Allen on push notifications — and gives less space to TikTok's fair-warning and over-breadth arguments. Emphasizing which way justices leaned turns a procedural hearing into an outcome preview. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (published by the free-market John Locke Foundation) | 4 | "TikTok urges top NC court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit" and "TikTok raises concerns about NC lawsuit's impact on state businesses" | Repeatedly frames the case as "Jackson's lawsuit," though Josh Stein filed it in 2024. Gives TikTok's business-liability warning its own standalone story and headline, while the child-safety allegations are compressed to a clause. The coverage is factually careful and quotes both lawyers, but the story selection favors the defense's policy argument. |
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center, courts-focused trade press | 5 | "TikTok tries to dodge 'addictive' design claims in North Carolina" | "Tries to dodge" characterizes a routine jurisdictional defense as evasion. The body reporting is detailed and even-handed; the verb in the headline is the spin. |
| Hoodline | U.S. center, AI-assisted local aggregator | 7 | "NC Supreme Court weighs whether TikTok knowingly hooked kids on the app" | Misstates the question before the court. The justices heard a jurisdiction appeal; whether TikTok "knowingly hooked kids" is the merits question no court has reached. The headline promotes an allegation into the thing being decided. |
References
- NC Supreme Court to decide if Jackson can pursue suit against TikTok — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the free-market John Locke Foundation
- TikTok urges top NC court to dismiss Jackson's lawsuit — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- NC Supreme Court weighs whether state can pursue TikTok lawsuit — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom nonprofit network, largely progressive-aligned donors
- North Carolina Business Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Over TikTok and ByteDance — Cranfill Sumner LLP · Defense-side business law firm client alert; summarizes the primary opinion
- State of N.C. v. TikTok Inc., 2025 NCBC 47 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2025) — CourtListener · Primary source; nonprofit court-records archive (Free Law Project)
- TikTok raises concerns about NC lawsuit's impact on state businesses — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; John Locke Foundation-funded
- Pennsylvania sues TikTok, alleging addictive algorithms and age-inappropriate content — The Philadelphia Inquirer · U.S. center-left metro daily, owned by the nonprofit Lenfest Institute
- North Carolina Supreme Court hears TikTok appeal — ABC11 · U.S. center; Disney-owned local broadcast station
- TikTok tries to dodge 'addictive' design claims in North Carolina — Courthouse News Service · U.S. center; subscription courts-beat wire
- AG Urges NC Justices To Keep Jurisdiction Over TikTok Suit — Law360 · U.S. center legal trade press; LexisNexis-owned, paywalled