An Iowa District Court has denied TikTok’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit from Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird claiming the social media giant lied to parents about inappropriate videos available to minors.
Polk County District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled that the Attorney General’s Office can move forward with it assertion that the social media platform violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The state claims that misrepresentations, deceptions, false promises and unfair practices by TikTok allowed it to receive a 12+ rating on the Apple App Store — which has allowed 13- to 17-year-old Iowans to access content the Attorney General says is inappropriate for minors.
But Farrell also denied a request by the Attorney General’s Office for a temporary injunction to prevent TikTok from making certain representations regarding its app while the case is being litigated.
People are also reading…
“The Court’s ruling is a big victory in our ongoing battle to defend Iowa’s children and parents against the Chinese Communist Party running TikTok,” Bird, a Republican, said in a statement. “Parents deserve to know the truth about the severity and frequency of dangerous videos TikTok recommends to kids on the app.”
TikTok, which is owned by Chinese parent company ByteDance, said in court filings the company takes multiple steps to moderate and remove inappropriate content posted on the social media app, including p*rnography and content that promotes or glorifies violence, abuse or self-harm, harassment and bullying.
According to the company, it removed more than 176 million videos last year for violating its policies and guidelines. TikTok says more than 96 percent were removed before being reported, and that 92 percent of videos flagged by users were removed within two hours of being reported.
Additionally, TikTok said it enables settings on its app to protect teens from adult content, and provides a family pairing feature where parents can link their account to their teens' to monitor and limit usage and searches.
The app requires users to provide a date of birth when they create an account, and employs settings to limit content for people between 13 and 17 years of age. Those under age 13 are directed to a platform that contains a limited version of the app.
However, according to court documents, an investigator in the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General’s Office registered as a new TikTok user under a fake name with a birth date of May 5, 2010, which would make the investigator appear 13 at the time. From Oct. 2 to 11, 2023, the investigator conducted searches and compiled videos he found of topics on TikTok including profanity, crude humor, sexual content, nudity, alcohol, tobacco, drug use, suicide, depression, self-harm, eating disorders and other mature themes.
A TikTok representative, during a court hearing, noted the investigator collected 204 clips but had viewed 16,600 videos to find them. Jennifer Brandenburger, head of product policy, agreed that some of the videos violated TikTok’s community standards and should be removed, but disagreed that others were inappropriate.
For example, she pointed out that videos of people discussing struggles with mental health were appropriate to show people discussing “emotionally complex topics in a supportive way.” Some of the videos show women singing or lip-syncing songs containing explicit lyrics. TikTok considers such videos to be “mild profanity,” even though the language is explicit, because the language is used in an artistic context and the songs themselves are widely available.
In seeking to dismiss the case, TikTok argued the age rating is created by the app store and the company simply provides information to receive a rating. Further, it argued that there is no deception, false promises or misrepresentations because the app store questions are subjective and different people can judge the standards differently.
Judge Farrell, in his ruling, said the Attorney General’s Office may not ultimately prevail on its claim, “but the court must consider its cause of action in the light most favorable to the facts alleged.”
“Considering the petition as a whole, the State has submitted a cognizable claim under the (Iowa Consumer Fraud Act),” he wrote.
+1
+1
0 Comments
'); var s = document.createElement('script'); s.setAttribute('src', 'https://assets.revcontent.com/master/delivery.js'); document.body.appendChild(s); window.removeEventListener('scroll', throttledRevContent); __tnt.log('Load Rev Content'); } } }, 100); window.addEventListener('scroll', throttledRevContent); }
Be the first to know
Get local news delivered to your inbox!
