State of Iowa, Ex Rel. Attorney General Brenna Bird v. Tiktok, Inc., Tiktok Ltd, Tiktok Pte. Ltd, Bytedance Ltd. and Bytedance, Inc.

In the Iowa Supreme Court

No. 24–1566

Submitted October 24, 2025—Filed January 23, 2026

State of Iowa ex rel. Attorney General Brenna Bird,

Appellee,

vs.

TikTok, Inc., TikTok LTD., TikTok PTE. LTD., ByteDance LTD.,

and ByteDance, Inc.,

Appellants.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, judge.

Entities associated with the TikTok social media platform seek

interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for

lack of specific personal jurisdiction. Affirmed.

McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices

joined.

David Yoshimura (argued), Nick Klinefeldt, and Emily R. O’Brien of Faegre

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Des Moines, and Emily Ullman (argued), Alexander

A. Berengaut, Neema Sahni, and J. Hardy Ehlers of Covington & Burling LLP,

Washington, D.C., for appellants.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Eric H. Wessan (argued), Solicitor General,

and William R. Pearson, Assistant Attorney General, and David H. Thompson,

Brian W. Barnes, and John D. Ohlendorf of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington,

D.C., for appellee.

2

Anne M. Voigts of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Palo Alto,

California, and Matthew D. Callanan of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for

amici curiae Professors Alan Trammell and Derek Bambauer.

Leslie C. Behaunek of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for amicus

curiae NetChoice.

3

McDermott, Justice.

The TikTok social media application (or “app”) has become a staple of life

for a vast swath of the American population, and particularly for teenagers. To

get younger users, the platform needs to appear safe to parents. The State of

Iowa sued TikTok, Inc. and its related entities, alleging they lied about the app’s

safety by maintaining a “12+” age rating on app stores despite the presence of

mature and age-inappropriate content. The TikTok entities moved to dismiss the

case, arguing that the Iowa district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.

The district court denied the motion. We granted the defendants’ application for

interlocutory review.

I.

The defendants are five related corporate entities responsible for the

TikTok platform: TikTok, Inc., TikTok, LTD., TikTok, PTE. LTD., ByteDance LTD.,

and ByteDance, Inc. (Because none of the defendants argue for distinct

treatment, we address them collectively.) Users access the TikTok platform

through an app, typically downloaded on a phone or tablet. The TikTok app offers

short videos created and uploaded by users, often set to popular music, that are

then made available to other users to view and react to. The TikTok app was the

most downloaded app in the world in 2022; the platform has over a billion global

users.

To make the app available to consumers, TikTok lists the app on third-

party digital storefronts, including the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and

Microsoft Store. To offer an app on the Apple App Store, developers must

complete an age-rating questionnaire. Apple’s questionnaire asks developers to

describe the prevalence of four content categories: “Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug

Use or References,” “Sexual Content and Nudity,” “Mature/Suggestive Themes,”

4

and “Profanity or Crude Humor.” For each category, the developer is asked to

describe the prevalence of that content as “None,” “Infrequent/Mild,” or

“Frequent/Intense.” TikTok answered “Infrequent/Mild” for every category.

Based on TikTok’s representations, Apple assigned the TikTok app a “12+” age

rating. The next higher (and highest) rating is “17+”. Apple offers the option to

choose an age rating higher than the one the questionnaire generates, but TikTok

has at all times elected to keep the “12+” rating.

TikTok markets the app in Iowa. Downloads have been robust—devices

with an Iowa IP address have activated the TikTok app hundreds of thousands

of times. When Iowa users download the app, they enter into a “Terms of Service”

agreement with TikTok. The terms of service agreement is governed by California

law. Under the agreement, TikTok gives users access to the TikTok platform.

Users allow TikTok to collect data about their use of the platform, including

location data. TikTok then uses location-tracking technology to serve Iowa-

specific advertisements and curate content for Iowa users.

The State of Iowa filed a petition against the defendants alleging violations

of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act. See Iowa Code § 714.16 (2024). The lawsuit

claims that the defendants engage in deceptive and unfair practices regarding

the app’s age rating and the age-appropriateness of its content. Citing numerous

examples, the State alleges that the app’s “12+” rating is misleading because the

platform frequently features intense profanity, sexual content, mature themes,

and references to alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Although TikTok offers a

“Restricted Mode” setting to further limit the appearance of inappropriate

content, the State alleges that this setting does not work as TikTok claims. The

State further alleges that TikTok’s representations about its “Community

Guidelines,” which purportedly moderate content to age-restrict mature videos

5

that appear on the platform, are similarly untrue. Along with its lawsuit, the

State also sought a temporary injunction to enjoin TikTok from making certain

representations about the app’s content and age ratings during the litigation.

The TikTok entities moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal

jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and immunity under section 230 of the

Federal Communications Decency Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. The district court

denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that it had personal jurisdiction over

the TikTok entities, that the State had pleaded a valid claim, and that section

230 did not apply to the specific claims alleged. The district court also denied

the State’s motion for a temporary injunction, holding that the State failed to

demonstrate irreparable harm. The defendants sought an interlocutory appeal

on the jurisdiction ruling, which we granted.

II.

We review a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

for correction of errors at law. Book v. Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co., 860 N.W.2d

576, 582 (Iowa 2015). In doing so, we accept the facts alleged in the petition and

the contents of uncontroverted affidavits as true. Id. Once the plaintiff

establishes a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the

defendant to rebut it. Shams v. Hassan, 829 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Iowa 2013).

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly exercised

personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Iowa law authorizes the exercise of

personal jurisdiction to the widest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Iowa R. Civ. P.

1.306. As a result, our personal jurisdiction analysis in this case collapses into

an inquiry about the scope of the Due Process Clause’s limits. Sioux Pharm, Inc.

v. Summit Nutritionals Int’l, Inc., 859 N.W.2d 182, 188 (Iowa 2015).

6

To comply with due process, a defendant must have sufficient minimum

contacts with the forum state such that requiring the defendant to litigate there

“does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe

Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Myer, 311 U.S.

457, 463 (1940)). The United States Supreme Court often describes two types of

personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud.

Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021). A state court may exercise general

jurisdiction over a defendant only when the defendant is “essentially at home” in

the forum. Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564

U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). For a corporate defendant, general jurisdiction usually

exists only in two places: the state of incorporation and the state of the principal

place of business. Kelchner v. CRST Expedited, Inc., ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025

WL 3682990, at *4 (Iowa Dec. 19, 2025); Anthony J. Gaughan, The Unsettled

State of Corporate General Personal Jurisdiction, 103 Neb. L. Rev. 131, 133

(2024). The State of Iowa in this case does not argue that the TikTok entities are

subject to general jurisdiction in Iowa.

Specific jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at

359. It has two primary requirements: (1) a defendant must have “purposefully

avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state,”

and (2) the plaintiff’s claims “must arise out of or relate to” those activities. Id.

(first quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958); and then quoting

Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)); see also Sioux

Pharm, Inc., 859 N.W.2d at 196. The critical consideration is whether the

defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum are substantial enough that

it “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World–Wide

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Jurisdiction thus

7

cannot rest on “random, isolated, or fortuitous” contacts. Keeton v. Hustler Mag.,

Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, (1984). Rather, the defendant must have deliberately

“reached out beyond” its home state by, for instance, “exploit[ing] a market” in

the forum or “entering a contractual relationship centered there.” Ford Motor Co.,

592 U.S. at 359 (alteration in original) (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277,

285 (2014)).

A. Minimum Contacts. The TikTok entities argue that they have not

purposefully availed themselves of the Iowa market. They argue that the terms

of service agreement is a standardized, nationwide contract not directed

specifically at Iowa. And they characterize any contact with Iowa as the result of

the “unilateral activity” of third parties—namely, Iowa users choosing to

download the app from third-party storefronts. The necessary contacts to

generate specific personal jurisdiction, they emphasize, must be “with the forum

State itself,” not merely with people who reside there. Walden, 571 U.S. at 285.

But the unilateral-activity argument fails where a defendant actively

cultivates and monetizes a relationship with a state’s residents. For instance, in

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., a plaintiff filed a libel suit in New Hampshire

against an out-of-state magazine publisher. 465 U.S. at 772. The publisher’s

contacts with New Hampshire were limited to its magazine sales there. Id. The

Supreme Court held that the publisher could be sued in New Hampshire because

it “continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market” for sales.

Id. at 781. Although the magazine was “aimed at a nationwide audience,” the

publisher could claim “no unfairness in calling it to answer for the contents” in

New Hampshire based on the magazine’s considerable distribution and sales

there. Id.

8

The TikTok entities rely on Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp., 760

F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2014), to support their position. In Fastpath, an Iowa software

business and an out-of-state corporation entered into mutual confidentiality and

noncompete agreements to explore a potential business partnership. Id. at 819.

When the Iowa corporation later sued in Iowa for breach of the agreement, the

defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. The United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s

dismissal, concluding that the defendant had not purposefully directed its

activities at Iowa, noting among other points that its marketing efforts were not

actively targeted at Iowa customers. Id. at 824. TikTok seeks to analogize that

holding here, arguing that—much like the defendant in Fastpath—merely

entering into an agreement with an Iowa resident constitutes “incidental” rather

than “targeted” contact.

But Fastpath’s holding rested on the fact that the agreement was silent as

to where the contemplated sharing of information was to take place. Id. at 822.

The agreement was entered into in anticipation of potential business

opportunities, yet the parties ultimately never did any business together. Id.

TikTok, by contrast, has intentionally cultivated an immensely profitable

business in Iowa by entering into ongoing contractual relationships (via the

terms of service) with hundreds of thousands of Iowans who regularly use the

app. Further, the court in Fastpath found that the agreement did not require

performance in Iowa; to the extent the companies shared any information, that

sharing occurred outside Iowa. Id. But the terms of service here both require

performance and contemplate future consequences within Iowa. Every time an

Iowa user accesses the content on the app or TikTok collects the user’s data, the

9

reciprocal contractual obligations are being performed where the user resides—

in Iowa.

In our view, Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Summit Nutritionals International, Inc. is a

far closer analog. 859 N.W.2d 182. In that case, an Iowa manufacturer sued an

out-of-state corporate defendant for unfair competition. Id. at 186–87. The

defendant’s website claimed that it had a manufacturing facility in Iowa, when

in fact another entity (one of the defendant’s suppliers) owned and operated the

facility. Id. The defendant argued that the erroneous statement on its passive

website was insufficient to create specific jurisdiction in Iowa. Id. at 187. We

disagreed, concluding that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the Iowa

market by actively promoting its product to Iowa residents on the website and

selling its product here. Id. at 196. We thus held that the district court had

specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant. Id. at 197.

The State’s petition alleges an even stronger connection here. Although the

user initiates the download of the app, the defendants thereafter engage in active

and purposeful conduct with the app’s users in Iowa. The State alleges that the

defendants do not merely maintain a passive website accessible in Iowa but

rather “actively serve content to and collect data from” users’ devices here. And

crucially, TikTok uses this Iowa-specific data, including location information, to

target advertisements to Iowa users from which it generates revenue.

The defendants have entered ongoing contractual relationships with

hundreds of thousands of Iowa residents. They involve not isolated contacts but

continuous transactions in which the defendants actively curate content for Iowa

users and, in exchange, extract valuable data. That TikTok is available

nationwide, and not just in Iowa, does not defeat jurisdiction in Iowa under the

analysis. See Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781 (where defendants “continuously and

10

deliberately exploit” a market, they must “reasonably anticipate being haled into

court” there). By monetizing the Iowa market through targeted advertising and

data collection under the terms of service, the defendants have purposefully

availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the state. The State has

thus established the defendants’ sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa.

B. Arising Out of or Relating to. We turn to whether the State’s claims

“arise out of or relate to” those contacts. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359 (quoting

Bristol–Myers, 582 U.S. at 262). Adequate protection of foreign defendants means

offering those defendants a “fair warning” that their activities may subject them

to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.

462, 472 (1985) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 218 (1977) (Stevens,

J., concurring in the judgment)). Although what it means to “arise out of or relate

to” does not require a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s contacts

and the plaintiff’s claims, the phrase must incorporate real limits to adequately

protect foreign defendants. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362.

The defendants suggest that Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

provides a useful analog. 582 U.S. 255. In that case, a group of plaintiffs sued

an out-of-state pharmaceutical company in California alleging that the

company’s drug had damaged their health. Id. at 259. Although the company

sold the drug and engaged in other business in California, it did not develop,

manufacture, or label the drug in California. Id. Perhaps more importantly, the

plaintiff group included many nonresidents of California who did not obtain the

drug from a California source. Id. The Supreme Court held that California had

no jurisdiction to hear the nonresidents’ claims because those claims lacked “a

connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.” Id. at 265.

11

The TikTok entities argue that the required connection with its Iowa

contacts is similarly missing here because the State alleges consumer fraud

through the misleading age ratings and not a breach of the terms of service. More

pointedly, the defendants assert that the allegedly deceptive actions—the

questionnaire responses, decisions about age ratings, statements in the

restricted-mode offering and app guidelines—all concern conduct that took place

outside Iowa. They emphasize that the harm alleged by the State is not born of

a terms of service violation, and that finding personal jurisdiction based on

merely entering into the terms of service would create an impermissible form of

general jurisdiction.

But in Bristol–Myers Squibb, the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims were more

clearly untethered to the forum because those plaintiffs did not purchase, use,

or suffer injuries from the drug in California. Id. at 264. A more fitting analysis

comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth

Judicial District Court. 592 U.S. 351. In Ford, the Court considered whether a

state had jurisdiction over a vehicle manufacturer in a product liability suit

where its vehicles were not first sold, designed, or manufactured in the state. Id.

at 356–57. In its analysis, the Court made clear that the “arise out of and relate

to” requirement does not demand a strict causal link. Id. at 362. Concluding that

jurisdiction is proper where a defendant “serves a market” in a state and the

injury arises from that service, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims arose

out of or related to other services Ford provided surrounding the use and sale of

its vehicles in the state. Id. at 363.

We have little trouble concluding that the claims here relate to the

defendants’ contacts with Iowa. The alleged deceptive age ratings were the very

tool used to induce Iowa parents and children to enter into the terms of service

12

and download the app. The contacts with the app’s users in Iowa, the State

alleges, exploited the market for Iowa users’ data to generate advertising revenue.

The petition alleges that the defendants secured and maintained this market

through the deceptive conduct at issue—specifically, by misrepresenting the

safety of the app to secure a “12+” rating. Without the alleged

misrepresentations, the State asserts that many Iowa parents would not have

permitted their children to download the app, enter into the terms of service

agreement, or provide the data that the defendants monetize.

We reject TikTok’s contention that a contract-based contact generally only

supports a breach of contract claim. As the Nevada Supreme Court recently

recognized in similar litigation, when a digital platform’s business model relies

on maximizing user engagement within a state, consumer protection claims

regarding the safety of that platform “relate to” the company’s presence in that

forum. TikTok, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 578 P.3d 640, 649 (Nev. 2025)

(en banc) (upholding personal jurisdiction because TikTok’s systematic service

to and profit from Nevadans through data collection, data sales, and targeted

advertising were sufficiently linked to deceptive trade practice claims). The terms

of service with Iowa users enable the data extraction and advertising that form

the basis of the defendants’ business in Iowa. The defendants’ use of deceptive

practices to induce Iowans into these very relationships relates to the defendants’

contacts.

Courts in other states have similarly rejected jurisdiction-based

arguments by TikTok entities along these same lines. See, e.g., State v. TikTok

Inc., No. 12CV–23–65, 2024 WL 5690575, at *2–3 (Ark. Cir. Ct., May 15, 2024)

(finding specific personal jurisdiction exists where TikTok utilized service

contracts with residents to generate revenue via geo-targeted advertisements, as

13

those contacts sufficiently relate to the state’s claims of deceptive trade practices

regarding app store age ratings), cert. denied, No. CV–24–522, 2025 WL 1522873

(Ark. 2025); State v. TikTok Inc., 245 N.E.3d 681, 688–92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)

(holding that TikTok’s continuous data transmission and exchange of platform

content for user personal data constituted sufficient contacts with the state to

establish specific personal jurisdiction over claims alleging deceptive acts aimed

at inducing Indiana residents to download the app); State v. TikTok, Inc., No.

2025–CC–01179, 2025 WL 3280288 (La. Nov. 25, 2025) (denying TikTok’s

application for a supervisory writ and upholding the lower courts’ denial of a

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Lynn Fitch ex rel. State v.

TikTok, Inc., No. G2024–1235, at 3–7 (Miss. Ch. Ct. Aug. 27, 2025) (ruling that

specific personal jurisdiction was proper based on TikTok’s state-specific

marketing, geo-targeted advertising, local charitable donations, and lobbying

efforts, all of which related to the state’s consumer protection claims); State ex

rel. Jackson v. TikTok Inc., No. 24CV032063–910, 2025 WL 2399525, at *3–5

(N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2025) (denying a motion to dismiss because TikTok’s

terms of service agreements, data collection practices, targeted advertising, and

in-state marketing were sufficiently related to the state’s claims regarding the

platform’s alleged harmful and addictive nature toward minors). See generally

State v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 346 A.3d 489 (Vt. 2025) (affirming the exercise of

personal jurisdiction where Meta’s service contracts, data tracking, and

Vermont-specific user studies were inherent to the business model giving rise to

the state’s claims of unfair practices and misrepresentations).

C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice. Having concluded that the

defendants have sufficient contacts with Iowa and that the State’s claims related

to those contacts, we examine in broad form whether exercising jurisdiction is

14

“reasonable” and “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice.” Harding v. Sasso, 2 N.W.3d 260, 264 (Iowa 2023) (quoting Ford Motor

Co., 592 U.S. at 351). In this analysis, we consider the burden on the defendant,

the forum state’s interest, and the plaintiff’s interest in effective relief. Id. at 265.

As to the litigation burden, the defendants argue that forcing them to

potentially litigate in fifty states would impose a considerable burden. But we

find that concern outweighed by the fact that they are multinational corporations

who have reached into Iowa and allegedly made misrepresentations about an

app that was made available, downloaded, and used in Iowa by thousands of

Iowa teens in exchange for their personal information. Conversely, Iowa has a

“manifest interest” in providing a forum for its residents to seek redress for

consumer fraud and in protecting its youth from harmful content. Burger King

Corp., 471 U.S. at 473 (quoting McGee v. Int’l Life Ins., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957)).

We find nothing unreasonable in the notion that the defendants must defend in

Iowa against claims brought by the State on behalf of its own residents who were

allegedly targeted and harmed within the state.

III.

Intentionally conducting business within a state comes with both the

benefit of the protection of the state’s laws and the burden of being haled into

court to answer for misconduct related to its operations there. It is no defense to

jurisdiction that the business operates in many other states too. The district

court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and

we thus affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.