TikTok seeks Section 230 shield from Iowa suit over lewd content

TikTok argues federal law bars state claims against internet providers for content posted by third parties and their decisions about how that content is presented. FILE - A TikTok sign is displayed on top of their building in Culver City, Calif., on Dec. 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File) DES MOINES, Iowa (CN) — Iowa’s suit against TikTok should be dismissed because the state’s consumer fraud claims are barred by federal law and by the First Amendment, the online video platform argued in state court Friday. Iowa claims user-created videos on the popular app — accessible to users as young as 12 — contain sexual content, nudity, profanity and mature themes including references to alcohol, tobacco and drug use, despite TikTok’s representations that such content is “mild” or “infrequent.” The state added two new claims in its amended complaint focusing on TikTok’s addictive nature and on the risk of the Chinese government accessing users’ personal information. In seeking to dismiss the case, TikTok argues that Iowa’s claims regarding the addictive features on the app are barred by a federal statute, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, which protects internet platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. And TikTok says its decisions on how it selects and presents that content are protected by the First Amendment. If Polk County District Judge David Ranscht denies TikTok’s motion to dismiss the case based on those two counts, all the state’s 11 claims could be addressed at trial. TikTok also argues Section 230 protects the platform from state action related to design features such as “infinite scroll” and content targeted to users based on their online history, which the state cites as creating addicted users. Anders Linderot of Washington D.C.-based Covington & Burling, arguing for TikTok, told Ranscht at Friday’s hearing there is no way to separate those features from content. “That is a core publishing function” and state claims based on that publishing function are barred by Section 230. As for the state’s claims about the Chinese government accessing TikTok users’ personal information, Linderot told the judge they are preempted under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because they “tread on the field of national security” — an exclusive province of the federal government. Congress recently enacted a statute that protects Americans’ personal information from being obtained by foreign adversaries, including China, and that statute covers TikTok. “When it comes to this country’s relationship with China, that is something Congress” has addressed through legislation that preempts state action, Linderot told the judge. TikTok points out in its brief filed with the court that President Donald Trump issued an executive order in September 2025 acknowledging that the U.S. TikTok application would be operated by a new joint-venture company based in the United States. “The president concluded that this transaction was a ‘qualified divestiture’” under federal law that would protect national security by removing TikTok in the United States from China’s control, TikTok says in its brief. Ranscht asked if the state’s concern is not the risk that TikTok’s data will be misappropriated by China but that TikTok has misrepresented that risk. “What we care about is that TikTok is honest about that risk,” said John Ohlendorf of Washington D.C.-based Cooper & Kirk, arguing on behalf of Iowa. As for TikTok’s Section 230 defense, Ohlendorf said while the federal statute protects internet platforms from state action for publishing third-party content, it does not protect TikTok from its representations about that content. TikTok is not shielded by the First Amendment, he told the judge, because “the First Amendment doesn’t protect nonexpressive conduct,” which in this case are TikTok’s features designed to make the content more addictive to young users. “At the very least, TikTok has substantially contributed to