The North Carolina Supreme Court convened on Wednesday to hear oral arguments in a high-stakes legal dispute that will determine whether the state has the authority to proceed with its lawsuit against TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance. At the core of the proceedings is the legal question of whether state courts maintain personal jurisdiction over the tech enterprise.
State officials originally filed the lawsuit to hold the social media platform accountable for allegedly designing addictive features targeted directly at minors. The state's complaint further contends that ByteDance deceptively promoted and marketed TikTok as a safe digital space for children and teenagers while downplaying the potential hazards associated with its prolonged use.
ByteDance previously sought to have the litigation thrown out, arguing before the North Carolina Business Court that the venue lacked jurisdiction over the company. Lower judicial authorities rejected the motion to dismiss, ruling that ByteDance's ongoing commercial ties and engagement with users within the state provided sufficient legal grounds for the lawsuit to move forward. ByteDance subsequently appealed that determination to the state's highest court.
During the Wednesday morning session, Jonathan Hacker, the attorney representing both TikTok and ByteDance, maintained that the social media app operates strictly as a uniform, nationwide digital service. Hacker argued that the mere presence of active users residing within North Carolina does not establish that the enterprise deliberately focused its business activities on or specifically targeted the state.
To illustrate his argument before the justices, Hacker presented a hypothetical scenario distinguishing between personalized user algorithms and state-specific marketing. He explained that if an entity operated a website tailored specifically to local North Carolina interests—such as a "Tarheel Nation" platform managed out of Chicago—it would likely be subject to state jurisdiction if a resident suffered harm. In contrast, Hacker asserted that TikTok's content feed is tailored to individual consumer preferences rather than directed at North Carolina as a distinct geographic jurisdiction.
Legal counsel representing the state of North Carolina vigorously challenged ByteDance's characterization of its operations. State attorney Josh Abram countered that TikTok maintains extensive, continuous, and lucrative relationships with residents across the state, actively collecting user data, distributing targeted commercial advertisements, and generating substantial corporate revenue from North Carolina users.
Abram argued that ByteDance cannot intentionally conduct widespread business with local residents while simultaneously claiming immunity from the state's regulatory and judicial authority. The state pointed out that TikTok has entered into millions of user contracts with North Carolinians and deliberately deployed geo-targeted advertisements alongside push notifications aimed directly at the state's youth.
The state further emphasized that these digital interactions were neither accidental nor isolated, arguing that over one million children and teenagers in North Carolina did not simply sign up for the platform by chance. Instead, the state maintained that these underage users downloaded the software on North Carolina soil, operated the app within state borders, and subsequently suffered alleged emotional and psychological harm inside the state.
Following a brief rebuttal granted to TikTok's counsel, the Supreme Court justices concluded the oral arguments and exited the bench. The court did not issue an immediate ruling on Wednesday, leaving the justices to evaluate the oral arguments and review the written filings submitted by both parties before releasing a formal decision at a later date.
The legal confrontation has drawn significant attention from child welfare and youth advocacy organizations, who emphasize that the case reflects broader public concern regarding how modern technology conglomerates engineer digital products to maximize user engagement at the expense of adolescent well-being.
Mick Tobin, a Duke University graduate, North Carolina native, and co-founder of the Young People's Alliance, noted that the platform's design makes it exceptionally difficult for young individuals to manage their screen time. Tobin explained that users frequently open the application expecting to browse for only five minutes, only to find themselves scrolling for half an hour or more, losing track of time and disrupting their daily routines.
Tobin further remarked that this extended engagement fosters negative mental health outcomes, as algorithmic feeds continually push content that encourages young users to compare themselves to others, resulting in diminished self-esteem and persistent self-doubt. He stressed that framing screen overuse solely around personal responsibility is inadequate because expecting a 15-year-old to disengage from a platform engineered for continuous retention is an unfair fight.
Concerns regarding intense digital consumption among youth are underscored by state public health metrics. Data from the 2025 North Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey revealed that nearly three-quarters of high school students across the state reported checking social media platforms multiple times per day. By comparison, fewer than one-quarter of surveyed high school students reported engaging in daily physical exercise.
Highlighting the public health implications of these behavioral patterns, Neil Harrington, the Senior Director of Policy and Research for the advocacy organization NC Child, noted that multiple scientific studies have connected frequent digital platform use to poor mental health outcomes among youth. Harrington pointed out that research indicates adolescent users who spend more than three hours daily on social media face heightened risks to their overall well-being.
(0)