In a legal battle that’s being watched by parents, tech companies, and privacy advocates across the country, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford has secured a significant victory against TikTok, the social media platform that’s become a staple for nearly half of Nevada’s population. The Nevada Supreme Court, in a decision filed on November 6, 2025, denied TikTok’s petition to block a lawsuit accusing the company of harming young users through addictive and dangerous features. This ruling clears the way for the case to proceed to trial and signals a broader shift in how courts may hold social media giants accountable for the mental health and safety of their youngest users.
The roots of this legal showdown stretch back to January 2024, when Ford, alongside three other Nevada state law firms, filed a civil action against TikTok. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok’s very design is intended to addict young minds, encouraging problematic internet usage that results in mental, physical, and privacy harms. According to the state’s complaint, TikTok keeps users—especially youth—glued to their screens “for as long as possible” through a slew of features: from auto-play and endless scroll on the infamous “For You” page, to social manipulation tools like quantified popularity and ephemeral content, to push notifications and flashy visual filters. The state further contends that TikTok’s parental controls and well-being initiatives are ineffective and misleading, failing to offer real protection for young users.
But that’s not all. The lawsuit also alleges that TikTok collects and sells user data to third-party advertisers, who then target users with precision, a practice the state says violates the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other tort laws. As the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion notes, “the app can collect and sell data from users to third-party advertisers, which subsequently targets users.” This, the state argues, is not just a matter of privacy—it’s a matter of public health and safety.
The complaint goes even further, citing internal TikTok documents that acknowledge the compulsive and sometimes harmful use of the app by young users. These documents reportedly reference the creation of “filter bubbles,” where users are repeatedly exposed to content that reinforces their existing beliefs and opinions. The result? According to the state, young people are being served up a steady diet of potentially harmful content—ranging from depictions of drugs, alcohol, and sexual activity to violence—on their personalized feeds.
As of mid-2022, approximately 49 percent of Nevadans were active TikTok users, according to the court’s opinion. That’s a staggering figure, underscoring the reach and influence of the platform in the Silver State. For Attorney General Ford, this case is about more than just one company or one app—it’s about setting a precedent for how tech giants are held accountable when their products impact the well-being of young people.
“TikTok has failed in its effort to evade justice in Nevada’s courts. Again. As this case continues, I am confident my office will prevail,” Ford said in a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision. “The courts have made it clear — if you do business in Nevada and you hurt people in Nevada, you will face trial in Nevada. We will never stop working to hold social media companies accountable for the harm they have done to Nevada’s youth.”
TikTok, for its part, has vigorously contested the lawsuit. The company filed a petition to dismiss the case in the lower court, arguing on three main fronts. First, TikTok claimed that Nevada courts lacked personal jurisdiction because the conduct alleged was not directed specifically at Nevada. Second, the company invoked Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, arguing that this provision immunizes platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. Finally, TikTok asserted that its decisions about how to “select, organize, and present third-party user-generated content” were protected by the First Amendment and a provision of the Nevada Constitution.
But the Nevada Supreme Court was not persuaded. Upholding the decision of the Clark County District Court, the justices rejected TikTok’s arguments and paved the way for the lawsuit to proceed. The court’s opinion made clear that Section 230 does not provide blanket immunity to social media companies when they are accused of designing their products in harmful ways—an interpretation that aligns with similar rulings in other states. This is a crucial distinction, as it opens the door for states to pursue legal action against platforms not just for the content they host, but for the design choices that may encourage addictive or dangerous behavior.
The ruling is part of a much larger national conversation about the responsibilities of tech companies in safeguarding the mental health and privacy of young users. Ford’s office has filed similar lawsuits against other social media giants, including Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Messenger, YouTube, and Kik. These actions reflect a growing consensus among state attorneys general and lawmakers that more needs to be done to protect children and teenagers from the potential harms of digital platforms.
For many parents and educators, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The debate over social media’s impact on youth mental health has only intensified in recent years, with studies suggesting links between excessive screen time and issues like anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances. The features at the heart of Nevada’s lawsuit—endless scrolling, algorithm-driven content, and relentless notifications—are designed to maximize engagement, but critics argue they can also foster dependency and expose young people to inappropriate or harmful material.
On the other side of the debate, defenders of platforms like TikTok point to the benefits of social media: creative expression, community building, and access to information. They argue that blanket restrictions or sweeping lawsuits risk stifling innovation and infringing on free speech. However, as the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling demonstrates, courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize the business practices and design decisions of tech companies, especially when the well-being of children is at stake.
Attorneys for TikTok could not immediately be reached for comment regarding the Supreme Court’s decision. The company has previously maintained that it provides robust parental controls and safety features, though the effectiveness of these measures remains hotly disputed.
As the case heads toward trial, all eyes will be on Nevada to see how the legal system navigates the complex intersection of technology, youth safety, and corporate accountability. The outcome could have far-reaching implications—not just for TikTok, but for the entire social media industry and the millions of young people who use these platforms every day.
For now, the message from Nevada’s top law enforcement official is clear: tech companies that do business in the state and impact its residents will be held to account. The next chapter in this high-stakes legal saga is about to unfold, and its ripples could be felt nationwide.
