The social media giant TikTok found itself at the heart of two major legal battles this week, as courts in both the United Kingdom and the United States handed down significant decisions involving the platform and its users. In the UK, the Court of Appeal reduced the minimum length of a life sentence for Mahek Bukhari, a TikTok influencer convicted of murder in a sensational case that has gripped the public since 2022. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, TikTok’s legal team appeared before the Iowa Supreme Court to argue that the state lacks the authority to pursue a consumer fraud lawsuit accusing the company of misrepresenting the presence of mature content to minors.
The UK case centers on Mahek Bukhari, whose rise to social media fame was abruptly halted by her involvement in a high-profile double murder. In September 2023, Bukhari was sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum term of 31 years and eight months, after being found guilty of murdering Saqib Hussain and Mohammed Hashim Ijazuddin in February 2022. Her mother, Ansreen Bukhari, was also convicted and received a minimum of 26 years and nine months. According to BBC reporting, the murders followed Ansreen’s unsuccessful attempt to end an affair with Hussain, who threatened to release sexually explicit material unless he was paid £3,000.
The prosecution claimed that Hussain and Ijazuddin were lured to a Tesco car park in Hamilton, Leicester, under the pretense of returning the money. Instead, they were ambushed and chased along the A46 at speeds reaching 100 mph. The chase ended in tragedy when their car was deliberately rammed off the road, resulting in their deaths. Hussain made a desperate 999 call moments before the fatal crash, telling police, “I’m begging you, I’m gonna die.” Forensic collision investigators later confirmed the high speeds involved, underscoring the dangerous nature of the chase.
Earlier this month, Mahek Bukhari’s legal team challenged her sentence at the Court of Appeal, arguing that her age—22 at the time of the offense—and lack of maturity should have been given greater consideration. Christopher Millington KC, representing Bukhari, stated, “None of this, we submit, was reflected in the fixing of the minimum term as it should have been.” The Crown Prosecution Service, represented by Collingwood Thompson KC, acknowledged the existence of blackmail but maintained that the original sentence was not “manifestly excessive.”
In a ruling issued on Friday, Lord Justice Warby, Mr Justice Lavender, and Judge Sylvia De Bertodano found that the minimum term was indeed excessive. Reading the summary in court, Lord Justice Warby said, “The judge did not make enough allowance for the fact that this appellant was an immature 22-year-old at the time of these offences.” The minimum term was reduced to 26 years and 285 days. The court emphasized that while Bukhari’s response to the blackmail was “disproportionate,” her youth and immaturity “were given far too little weight” and should have “exerted a substantial downward pressure on the minimum term.”
The case also involved other defendants. Two additional individuals were convicted of murder, and three others—Natasha Akhtar, Ameer Jamal, and Sanaf Gulamustafa—were found guilty of manslaughter. They received sentences of 11 years and eight months, 14 years and eight months, and 14 years and nine months, respectively. All three challenged their sentences alongside Bukhari. Their lawyers argued that their roles were minor and that they were “incapable of doing anything to reduce the obvious risk” posed by the high-speed chase. The Court of Appeal agreed in part, reducing each sentence by two years and noting, “The sentences for all these appellants were manifestly excessive. They could and should have been substantially lower.”
While the UK courts weighed the fate of a social media influencer, TikTok itself faced legal scrutiny in the United States. On October 24, 2025, TikTok’s attorneys appeared before the Iowa Supreme Court to contest the state’s jurisdiction in a consumer fraud lawsuit filed by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird. The lawsuit, initiated in January 2024, claims that TikTok violates the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act by misrepresenting the frequency of profanity, sexual content, and nudity available to teenage users.
According to Courthouse News Service, TikTok’s lawyers argued that simply being a global company with users in all 50 states does not automatically subject it to jurisdiction in Iowa. Emily Ullman, representing TikTok, cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, contending that “being a large international company does business in all 50 states is constitutionally insufficient to generate jurisdiction.” She warned that allowing such jurisdiction would amount to a “blank check” for states to pursue claims against global companies wherever they operate.
Justice Christopher McDonald of the Iowa Supreme Court pushed back, questioning whether it was truly unforeseeable or unfair for TikTok to be held accountable in states where it actively does business. The state’s solicitor general, Eric Wessan, countered that TikTok has “substantial contacts” with Iowa, pointing to hundreds of thousands of Iowans who have downloaded the app and agreed to its terms of service. “In return for being able to access the content they seek, content is served to them by a carefully curated algorithm that is intended to appeal to them to encourage them to use the app,” Wessan argued. He further noted that TikTok collects vast amounts of user data, including location information, which is central to its targeted advertising business model.
The trial court had previously ruled that it had personal jurisdiction over TikTok because Iowans agree to the platform’s terms of service. TikTok’s interlocutory appeal, however, focuses solely on the question of jurisdiction, not the merits of the consumer fraud claims. The company insists that agreeing to terms of service does not establish the necessary connection between TikTok and the state of Iowa. In its brief, TikTok stated, “A contrary approach would result in a roving form of jurisdiction that may travel from state to state with a potential plaintiff—a result that precedents squarely foreclose.”
The state, in its response, maintained that the lower court was correct in exercising jurisdiction. “When an Iowa consumer downloads the application, the consumer and TikTok enter a continuing contractual relationship that imposes many ongoing obligations,” the brief argued. The state emphasized that TikTok’s ongoing access to user data, especially location information, is critical to its business model and establishes a strong connection to Iowa.
These two cases, unfolding on opposite sides of the Atlantic, highlight the complex legal challenges that social media platforms and their users now face. Whether grappling with the personal consequences of online actions or the broader question of legal accountability in a digital age, the courts are being asked to balance individual rights, public safety, and the reach of global technology giants. As the Iowa Supreme Court deliberates its decision and the UK’s Court of Appeal sets new sentencing precedents, the outcomes will likely reverberate far beyond the courtroom, shaping how justice is pursued in the interconnected world of social media.
With public scrutiny mounting and legal questions unresolved, TikTok’s dual legal dramas serve as a stark reminder: in the digital era, the boundaries between online influence, personal responsibility, and corporate accountability are anything but clear-cut.
