TikTok became a point of uncommon consensus among a bipartisan group of 14 attorneys general who accused the social video app of conning the public by claiming it is safe for kids, despite pushing features that make them addicted to the platform.
In some cases, that includes shopping features that fashion brands are keeping a close eye on as a source of growth.
The main argument is that the app risks the mental health of teens by blasting notifications that can disrupt sleep and running autoplay videos to keep their eyes on the app, with no option to switch off autoplay, according to the lawsuits.
They allege that this system hooks them into dangerous, even life-threatening, behaviors, as seen in viral challenges.
“Young people are struggling with their mental health because of addictive social media platforms like TikTok,” said Letitia James, New York attorney general, in a statement. “TikTok claims that their platform is safe for young people, but that is far from true.”
Brian Schwalb, Washington, D.C. AG, didn’t mince words either, likening the app to “digital nicotine” that carries “profound” mental health risks, including depression, anxiety, sleep loss and body dysmorphia.
The stakes are high as more than half of U.S. teenagers use the app.
TikTok, which is fending off a Biden administration mandate to separate from Chinese owner ByteDance or face a ban from U.S. app stores, disputes the allegations.
“We strongly disagree with these claims, many of which we believe to be inaccurate and misleading,” a TikTok representative said, citing the implementation of safeguards like proactive monitoring and account removals for underage users and safety mechanisms, including default screen time caps, family pairing and default privacy settings for users under 16.
“We’ve endeavored to work with the attorneys general for over two years, and it is incredibly disappointing they have taken this step rather than work with us on constructive solutions to industrywide challenges,” the person said.
But those moves are lost on the AGs, who point to TikTok challenges that have led to injuries and even death.
New York’s James called such challenges a “cornerstone” of the app, driving some of its most popular sensations and encouraging teens to engage in risky behaviors “to obtain rewards and increase their number of ‘likes,’ views, and followers, a foreseeable consequence of TikTok’s engagement-maximizing design.”
The scope of the matter is expansive jurisdictionally — with cases filed in California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, D.C. It also includes other allegations, such as the use of kids’ data without permission.
D.C.’s case also takes aim at TikTok’s commerce and currency features.
TikTok Live, the platform’s livestreaming feature, and TikTok Coins currency — which can be gifted or cashed out for real money — amount to a “virtual money transmission system,” requiring the developer to obtain a money transmitter license, the suit stated. But, it argued, the business ignored the requirement, violating district law.
“TikTok stands out with its use of Coins — an unlicensed virtual currency,” the filing said. “Users buy Coins to send virtual ‘Gifts’ during Live sessions, which streamers can cash out for real money.
“TikTok incentivizes users to go Live by promising these monetary rewards ‘the more popular [their] content becomes.’”
Although the app sets an age requirement for Lives and gifting at 18 years or older, the D.C. filing said lax age verification encourages kids to lie about their age to participate.
Before the lawsuits came down, the developer was already busy. Reportedly, it has been scraping massive volumes of web data to build new artificial intelligence — at a striking velocity, outpacing even OpenAI and Google — and introducing new ad automation options for the holidays.
In between, it has also been locked in a battle to stave off a U.S. ban, set for Jan. 19, unless it finds a non-Chinese owner. To counter the Biden administration mandate, which was signed into law in April, it argued in a federal appeals court last month that the measure unconstitutionally violates its users’ First Amendment rights.
