Fourteen states have just that claim the social media platform damages the mental health of young users and collects their data without consent. Each lawsuit was filed individually. The suits, which are led by the attorneys general of New York and California, say the platform violated the law by “falsely claiming its platform is safe for young people.”
The lawsuits spotlight what the plaintiffs call “addictive” features. These include the kinds of things present with many modern social media apps, like 24/7 notifications and autoplay videos. However, the lawsuit also focuses on “dangerous TikTok challenges.” There have been plenty of these, from challenges that task people with taking an to .
“Young people are struggling with their mental health because of addictive social media platforms like TikTok,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “TikTok claims that their platform is safe for young people, but that is far from true.”
It’s worth noting that the aforementioned challenges were issued by other TikTok users, and not by the platform itself. However, the suits do attempt to illustrate TikTok’s “underlying business model”, which is accused of “maximizing young users’ times on the platform so the company can boost revenue from selling targeted ads.”
The suits also accuse TikTok and parent company ByteDance of collecting the data of young users without consent. This is not a new complaint, as the Department of Justice that charged TikTok of collecting the personal information of children on the platform and failing to comply with requests for that data to be deleted. Texas also recently sued the platform .
Today’s suits seek to impose financial penalties on the platform, including “the disgorgement of all profits resulting from the fraudulent and illegal practices, and to collect damages for users that have been harmed.”
This is all happening as parent company ByteDance faces a decision to or experience a nationwide ban. The current deadline for this decision is January 17, but the company’s lawyers recently argued that the terms of this law were unconstitutional.
