Nevada Supreme Court

Tiktok, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (state of Nev.) (civil)

November 6, 2025141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 51

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court denied TikTok's petition for extraordinary writ relief, holding that Nevada courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok based on its Nevada-directed data collection, targeted advertising, and related activities. The court further held that the Communications Decency Act does not immunize the State's claims concerning TikTok's own statements and allegedly harmful platform design, and that the First Amendment does not require dismissal at the pleading stage. The claims sufficiently alleged misleading commercial speech and content-neutral design duties independent of third-party content.

Holding

  • Specific personal jurisdiction. The district court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over TikTok because TikTok purposefully directed conduct at Nevada through its collection of Nevada users' data, sale of that data for targeted advertising, marketing, and related platform activities; the State's claims arose from or related to those contacts, and jurisdiction was not shown to be unreasonable.
  • Communications Decency Act immunity. The Communications Decency Act does not require dismissal of the State's Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims at the pleading stage because the claims target TikTok's own alleged misrepresentations and omissions and its allegedly harmful, content-neutral design features rather than treating TikTok as the publisher of third-party content.
  • First Amendment protection. The First Amendment does not require dismissal of the State's claims as pleaded because the design-based claims challenge allegedly harmful, content-neutral engagement features rather than expressive content curation, and the misrepresentation claims concern allegedly misleading commercial speech.

Docket 89709

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF