UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court: TikTok must face the State’s consumer fraud suit in Iowa court

by Rox Laird | January 28, 2026

Online video provider TikTok does business with millions of American users in all 50 states, including Iowans who have downloaded the company’s app hundreds of thousands of times and who agree to its terms of service. Still, the company argues, it should not have to defend itself against a lawsuit filed in state court by the Iowa Attorney General claiming the company misrepresents the nature of its content available to Iowa children.

That is the argument the company made in an application for interlocutory review of the Polk County District Court’s denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of specific personal jurisdiction. The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with TikTok’s argument and affirmed the district court, saying TikTok had sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa to satisfy due process under the 14th Amendment. [Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorney Leslie C. Behaunek submitted an amicus brief in support of TikTok for NetChoice, a trade association for online businesses.]

The State sued TikTok, asserting the social media app allows Iowans as young as age 12 to view videos created by users that contain age-inappropriate content, such as profanity, sexual content and nudity. The State argues TikTok misrepresents the frequency and intensity of such content when seeking ratings from app stores by filling out age-rating questionnaires.

Based on TikTok’s answers to those questionnaires, it was assigned a 12+ age rating in the Apple App Store and a “T for Teen” rating in the Microsoft and Google Play stores, indicating the platform’s content is generally suitable for users ages 12 and older.

Although the district court denied TikTok’s motion to dismiss the State’s petition for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, the sole question before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether Iowa courts have specific personal jurisdiction to hear the State’s suit.

Two types of jurisdiction are recognized by the courts: general jurisdiction, where a defendant is essentially “at home” in the state, and specific jurisdiction in which a defendant must have purposefully taken advantage of the privilege of doing business within the state. The State’s suit against TikTok meets the latter definition, the Iowa Supreme Court said in its Jan. 23 decision.

TikTok 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,” the Court said. Every time an Iowa user accesses content on the app, TikTok collects the user’s data, which it uses to target advertisements to Iowa users.

“That TikTok is available nationwide, and not just in Iowa, does not defeat jurisdiction in Iowa under the analysis,” Justice Matthew McDermott wrote for the Court. “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 Court disagreed with TikTok’s argument that there is insufficient connection between the State’s consumer fraud claim and TikTok’s Iowa contacts because the State is alleging consumer fraud with TikTok’s age ratings that are created outside of Iowa, not with the terms of service that Iowans accept.

“We have little trouble concluding that the claims here relate to the defendants’ contacts with Iowa,” Justice McDermott wrote. “The alleged deceptive age ratings were the very tool used to induce Iowa parents and children to enter into the terms of service 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 Court also disagreed with TikTok’s argument that forcing it to defend itself in courts in all 50 states would impose a considerable burden. That is in part because Iowa has an interest in providing a forum for its residents to seek redress for consumer fraud.

“Intentionally conducting business within a state comes with both the benefit of the protection of the state’s laws and the burden of being hauled into court to answer for misconduct related to its operations there.” Justice McDermott wrote. “It is no defense to jurisdiction that the business operates in many other states too.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2025-26