Minnesota v. TikTok

Technology-aided record indexing

The information contained in this memorandum is current as of July 24, 2026. To facilitate my review, every publicly available case file on Minnesota’s online court records database (MCRO) was programmatically extracted and inventoried—155 indexed files (of 165 total) comprising 1,953 pages. For efficiency, the compiled index was then routinely queried as I prepared this memorandum.

The case

The State sues TikTok Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC under Minnesota’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and Money Transmission Act (MTA), invoking the Attorney General’s enforcement authority under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint filed under seal April 2, 2026, and publicly filed in redacted form April 15, 2026 (Index 159). Defendants answered May 1, 2026 (Index 160), asserting thirty-two affirmative defenses and demanding a jury. There are no counterclaims. TikTok moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. After full briefing and a December 23, 2025 hearing, the Court denied the motion in full (Index 148). The case is in discovery before Special Master Hon. Timothy McManus. The First Amended Scheduling Order (Index 152) sets, among other dates: • fact discovery closing September 18, 2026; • plaintiff expert disclosures October 16, 2026; • dispositive motions filed and heard by June 19, 2027; and • a trial block no sooner than October 25, 2027. Mediation is required; summary judgment should not be heard until mediation has been attempted (Index 108 practice).

The claims, in short

The App is intentionally built like a slot machine for kids. TikTok uses design features that keep kids scrolling and coming back: the personalized For You feed, infinite scroll, push notifications, filters, and related engagement tools. Minnesota says that is unfair and unconscionable under Minnesota consumer laws (the UDTPA and CFA), especially after August 1, 2023 amendments that expressly cover unfair or unconscionable practices. LIVE plus Coins is a dangerous money machine. TikTok LIVE lets people stream live. Users buy Coins, send Gifts during LIVE, and creators get Diamonds they can cash out. Minnesota says this system is designed in a way that hooks kids, confuses them about money, and helps predators exploit kids, while TikTok takes a large cut. That is also pleaded as unfair or unconscionable under the UDTPA and CFA. TikTok lied about safety, and it runs an unlicensed money business. Minnesota says TikTok told the public the App and its safety tools were safer and more effective than they really are. Separately, Minnesota says the Coins/Gifts/Diamonds system is money transmission under Minnesota law, and TikTok never got the required license (and is not registered with FinCEN either).

The seven counts

Count Statute Theory 1 Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1(13)(ii)

Unfair/unconscionable — addictive features

2 Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subd. 1

Unfair/unconscionable — addictive features

3 § 325D.44, subd. 1(13)(ii)

Unfair/unconscionable — LIVE monetization

4 § 325F.69, subd. 1

Unfair/unconscionable — LIVE monetization

5 § 325D.44, subd. 1(5), (7), and/or (14)

Misrepresentations/omissions — safety & design

6 § 325F.69, subd. 1

Misrepresentations/omissions — safety & design

7 Minn. Stat. § 53B.36(a) Unlicensed money transmission The unfair/unconscionable prong of the UDTPA/CFA, as pleaded, turns on the August 1, 2023 statutory amendments and the definition in Minn. Stat. § 325F.69, subdivision 8 (method of competition, act, or practice that offends public policy; is unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; or is substantially injurious to consumers). That definition also supplies the proof standard for UDTPA subdivision 1(13) via § 325D.44, subdivision 2(b). Federal overlay Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides that no interactive-computer-service provider “shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” and that no cause of action may be brought under state law inconsistent with that section. 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1), (e)(3). The First Amendment, as invoked by TikTok through Tornillo4 and Moody5, remains the parallel constitutional attack. The strategy, in short Minnesota must prove: 1. TikTok built and kept features knowing they drive compulsive kid use and related harm. 2. LIVE and Coins pose an exploitation risk while TikTok takes a cut. 3. TikTok’s public safety claims were false or misleading given what TikTok knew. 4. The Coin system is money transmission under Minnesota law and needed a license. 5. The conduct and resulting harm reach Minnesota. 6. TikTok Inc. and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC can be held responsible for the historical conduct. 7. The requested injunction and penalties are tailored and not constitutionally excessive. Two findings that should drive strategy First, the Court has already adopted the State’s preferred legal framing. Index 148 did more than deny dismissal. It characterized the claims in terms that discovery, experts, and proposed findings must preserve, so TikTok cannot later reframe the case as publisher liability for third-party videos. a. Design and monetization are TikTok’s own conduct. Counts I through IV attack engagement and LIVE currency features, not particular videos. Prove product choices such as time on the App, habit loops, A/B tests, gift economics, and age-gate failures. b. Deception is TikTok’s own speech. Counts V and VI concern TikTok’s statements and omissions about safety tools. Section 230 does not immunize first-party misrepresentations. Build a chart of what TikTok said, when, to whom in Minnesota, and what it knew. c. Money transmission is not a Section 230 claim. Keep Count VII on the Coin, Gift, and Diamond money flow, stored value, and non-registration. Do not import LIVE content theories into Count VII. d. The CFA and DTPA claims are subject to notice pleading under Rule 8.01. That keeps the claims alive. It does not lower the summary-judgment bar. e. No Commerce Department referral is required under section 8.31. Litigate whether a license is required and whether the facts meet the statute. Do not re-litigate referral.

If discovery and experts obsess over which videos were harmful, TikTok will argue that the State abandoned Index 148. For every document, ask whether the proof depends on information provided by another information content provider. If it does, isolate it. If it does not, keep it in the design, deception, or money-transmission proof that tracks the Order. Second, pleadings victories do not survive blurry proof. The Answer admits platform architecture, including For You, LIVE, Coins, teen usage, Minnesota Terms, and non-registration, while denying knowledge, duty, deception, causation, and remedy. The State will win or lose on five points. a. Authenticate internals. Digital Wellbeing, Project Meramec, and money-transmission admissions matter only with foundation and custodian pins. b. Prove Minnesota nexus and harm. National studies are not enough. Prove Minnesota users, advertising, commissions, LIVE and Coin activity, and Minnesota-grounded injury. c. Map the money. Defendants admit non-registration and deny that registration is required. Defeat the processor and Diamonds-as-metrics defenses with a complete money-flow map and TikTok’s own compliance admissions. d. Establish successor liability against the Joint Venture. Break the Answer’s wall against pre-January 22, 2026 knowledge, or historical internals will not stick to a defendant in the caption. e. Discipline remedies. After Index 148, TikTok is hoping for a modest penalty and a narrow injunction. Do not lead with Prayer paragraph 6, national injunctions, or compelled safety warnings. Lead publicly with Minnesota-directed practice bans and calibrated alternative penalty units. Hold the per-child multiplier only as a pleading ceiling. Spend discovery on those five tasks. TikTok does not need to re-win Section 230 if the summary-judgment record looks like content moderation, speculative causation, or constitutional overreach. Even if some liability theory survives, an undisciplined remedy package can still collapse case value under Timbs, due process, mootness, and decree-shaping First Amendment arguments.

Counts I–II — Addictive features (UDTPA / CFA)

These counts are the heart of the Court’s Section 230 analysis. They allege harm from application design—variable rewards, endless feed, notifications, filters, and LIVE—independent of any particular third-party video. That is the

The Answer uses Executive Order 14352; the Complaint, in places, says 14258. Compare First Am. Compl. ¶ 23 (Index 159) (“September 2025 Executive Order, No. 14258”), with Answer ¶¶ 23–24 (Index 160) (Exec. Order No. 14,352, Sept. 25, 2025). Exec. Order No. 14,258 (Apr. 4, 2025) is an enforcement-delay order, not the September 2025 joint-venture / divestiture order.

own-conduct path adopted in Index 148 and illustrated by Lemmon.25 The CFA “sale of merchandise” theory, covering app access for data and Coins, expands the statutory hook. Minnesota’s post-2023 unfairness definition fits “substantially injurious to consumers” if the proof shows knowing deployment of coercive design against children. The principal vulnerabilities are temporal, evidentiary, and constitutional. The unfairness window for this prong begins August 1, 2023. Addiction science and population mental-health statistics invite remoteness attacks. TikTok will argue that recommendations and notifications are editorial publishing under Moody, and the California social-media MDL.26 The Answer’s nighttime notification muting for self-identified teens will be offered as remediation and as proof that forward-looking relief is unnecessary. Rebuild these counts around time-on-app, compulsion, and sleep or school impairment tied to TikTok’s own engagement objectives and A/B tests, not around the claim that “TikTok showed harmful videos.” Keep content-based harms in a separate module. For monetary relief, build the causal nexus required by Group Health Plan with TikTok-specific Minnesota metrics rather than population literature alone. Sequence adolescent-addiction experts to the October 16, 2026 deadline with Minnesota cohort data.

Counts III–IV — LIVE monetization (UDTPA / CFA)

The LIVE and Coins narrative is the State’s most vivid knowing-facilitation story. Authenticated Project Meramec material, predator economics, and currency design aimed at children are high-impact, and these counts also bridge to Count VII. The closest sister-state analogue is Utah Div. of Consumer Prot., which denied TikTok’s motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction, Section 230, and UCSPA deceptive and unconscionable claims arising from LIVE exploitation and TikTok’s brokerage of monetized transactions. These counts are also the easiest for TikTok to re-label as publisher claims about third-party sexual content. Minnesota-specific LIVE exploitation examples are thinner on the face of the public complaint than national examples. Affirmative Defense 10, which targets third-party conduct, is aimed here. Utah is persuasive, not binding, and TikTok will argue that UCSPA wording and Utah’s factual package differ. Rebuild around the Special Master’s Wang parameters: Minnesota- and AGO-unique LIVE, exploitation, and money-transmission topics, without cumulative multi-AG questioning. Build a Minnesota underage LIVE and Coin-flow proof set before August 26, 2026. Brief Utah as brokerage and design adjacent to HomeAway.com, consistent with Index 148, not as a content-hosting case.

C. Counts V–VI — Misrepresentations and omissions (UDTPA / CFA)

These counts rest on TikTok’s own statements in Community Guidelines, Newsroom materials, enforcement reports, and executive statements. That matches the own-speech reasoning the Court accepted from Barnes and Demetriades. Concrete contradictions—touted zero-tolerance versus leakage, and parental tools versus known failure modes—are triable. Puffery and “documents speak for themselves” will dominate. Omission theories collide with Terms and Guidelines notice defenses. Permanent-injunction language that forces affirmative “TikTok is unsafe” disclosures could revive compelled-speech arguments under Bonta, even though the Court rejected that framing on the pleadings. Rebuild with a statement-by-statement falsity chart that records date, channel, Minnesota exposure, and contemporaneous internal knowledge. Draft injunction proposals that enjoin identified deceptive statements and unfair practices without compelling contested ideological warnings.

D. Count VII — Money Transmission Act

Count VII is a clean statutory claim. TikTok did not argue Section 230 against it on the motion to dismiss, and the Court held that § 8.31 authority needs no Commerce referral. Defendants’ admission of non-registration narrows

26 In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prods. Liab. Litig., 702 F. Supp. 3d 809 (N.D. Cal. 2023).

the fight to whether a license is required. Stored-value and receiving-money definitions in Minn. Stat. § 53B.28, subdivision 18, are favorable if Coins are stored value or if TikTok receives money for transmission from Minnesota persons. Secondary reporting indicates that the D.C. Court of Appeals declined TikTok’s interlocutory appeal seeking early dismissal of parallel Money Transmitters Act claims in District of Columbia v. TikTok Inc., No. 2024-CAB-006377 (D.C. Super. Ct.). The fight is duty and characterization, not registration status. TikTok will argue that Apple and Google process cash-in, that Diamonds are a voluntary popularity metric, and that game-platform or closed-loop provisions in Minn. Stat. § 53B.69 apply. If cash-out is shown, subdivision 8(3)’s outside-conversion language becomes a State weapon. Website Coin rails may weaken a pure App Store processor story. The technical virtual-currency provisions— including section 53B.71—need expert walkthrough beyond Order quotations. Civil-penalty stacking with Counts I through VI intensifies constitutional remedy risk. D.C. interlocutory practice is not a Minnesota merits holding. Retain a money-transmission and virtual-currency expert. Map cash to Coin to Gift to Diamond to cash-out, including merchant of record, custodial banks, settlement flows, and Minnesota volume. Lock whether Diamond allocation is discretionary or a mechanical conversion of Gift value; that is the factual hinge. Authenticate internal PRD admissions regarding MTL noncompliance, while preparing to defeat draft and legal-conclusion objections. Do not re-litigate Commerce referral. Consider voluntary AG–Commerce coordination for narrative and remedy optics. Obtain and pin the D.C. Court of Appeals order. Plan a fallback remedy of Minnesota license-or-disable rather than per-Gift nuclear penalties.

A. Section 230 and the First Amendment

Index 148 held that Counts I and II attack design; Counts III and IV attack brokering and monetization design that facilitates known harm; Counts V and VI attack TikTok’s own misrepresentations; and none seek liability for specific third-party information. That framing is correct and must be preserved. TikTok will spend discovery trying to make every document about which videos or LIVE streams were harmful. Treat every RFP, deposition outline, and expert report as an appellate record on one question: does this proof depend on information provided by another information content provider? If it does, wall it into a “content” module. If it does not, keep it in the design, deception, or money-transmission modules that track Index 148. Answer TikTok’s discovery fork on purpose. TikTok will demand identification of specific Minnesota videos, LIVE streams, or CSAM instances that caused harm, or a concession that the case is design-only. If the State’s liability theory is content-agnostic design, deception, and money transmission, lock that contention early and keep content exhibits illustrative and modular. If particular Minnesota LIVE incidents are used, cabin them to Counts III and IV knowledge and facilitation proof, not as the spine of Counts I and II. An accidental gallery record is how Index 148’s framing is lost at summary judgment and on appeal. On a content-contaminated record, TikTok will lead with Force v. Facebook, Inc.27 and Doe v. Grindr Inc.,28 not only with Rosenblum. Distinguish those cases the way Index 148 distinguished the social-media MDL and Rosenblum: Minnesota’s unfairness and deception theories target TikTok’s own product choices, monetization architecture, and first-party statements. Those duties do not require the Court to decide which third-party posts should have been removed. Keep Lemmon and Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms, Inc., as the affirmative path. Keep Force and Grindr as named distinguish targets in every major Section 230 brief. Anderson helps defeat Section 230 by treating For You feed recommendations as TikTok’s own expressive activity. The same label can feed a Moody First Amendment attack if the State embraces it as the theory of the case. Cite first to Index 148 and Mass. SJC Meta; then to persuasive design and LIVE denials from Utah, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and North Carolina; and to Anderson only if needed to defeat a recommendation-as-publishing Section

230 argument, paired immediately with the State’s conduct-not-speech First Amendment position. Do not volunteer Anderson’s “expressive activity” label in expert reports or proposed findings. The Court’s “conduct, not speech; therefore no scrutiny” holding is a pleadings-stage victory. Preserve an intermediate-scrutiny fallback: protecting children from unfair and deceptive commercial practices is a substantial interest, and conduct-focused remedies are narrowly drawn. Do not let the injunction prayer become a compelled-speech vehicle under Bonta.

B. Personal jurisdiction

The Court credited Minnesota Terms, Facebook promotion metrics, geo-targetable advertising, commissions, and data-driven personalization. TikTok will revisit relatedness on a fuller record. Discovery should expand Minnesota-directed commercial acts beyond the 2019 Facebook figures recited in the Order. State ex rel. Bird v. TikTok, Inc.,29 and State v. TikTok Inc., Nos. 23A-PL-3110 & 23A-PL-3111 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2024), remain the strongest appellate-facing personal-jurisdiction supplements. New Hampshire’s cyclical data and advertising relatedness reasoning is a useful trial-court parallel.

C. Remedies

After Index 148, remedy collapse is TikTok’s most likely defense path. Prayer paragraph 6, which treats each child access as a separate violation, is the single most important remedy vulnerability. Affirmative Defenses 18 and 19 are not boilerplate. After Timbs and Bajakajian, partly punitive state civil penalties face federal Excessive Fines review. Stacked per-child units invite a “grossly disproportional” attack even if the statutory maximum under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subdivision 3, is high. Make alternative violation units the operational penalty theory—for example, per deceptive campaign or statement period, per unlicensed transmission day, or per LIVE monetization design maintained after knowledge. Hold Prayer paragraph 6 only as a pleading ceiling. Build a short Bajakajian factor checklist before mediation. Tie disgorgement to Minnesota revenue streams under protective order. Keep injunctive relief practice-specific, Minnesota-directed, and resilient to mootness arguments based on quiet hours and Family Pairing. Demand proposed injunction text early enough to kill compelled “TikTok is unsafe” confessions under Bonta before they harden into the State’s ask. After Nat’l Pork Producers, the Dormant Commerce Clause (Affirmative Defense 21) is a decree-trimming tool, not a case-killer. Do not wager liability on extraterritoriality. Use it only to insist that injunction language remain Minnesota-facing and geo-aware, and to reject prayer terms that function as a nationwide redesign of the algorithm or LIVE economy.

D. Contingency fee and Joint Venture

Affirmative Defense 17 attacks the contingency arrangement as distorting the Attorney General’s duty. The public-enforcement control line associated with Cnty. of Santa Clara v. Superior Court,30 asks whether conflict-free government attorneys retain control of charging, settlement, and public communications. This is primarily a discovery and optics hazard. Maintain clear AG control, assert privilege, and avoid fee-detail fights that distract from LIVE and design proof. With the USDS Joint Venture in the caption, map which entity designs features, holds funds, employs Trust and Safety leadership, and succeeded to TikTok Inc.’s U.S. operations. Treat the fight as three tracks. First, TikTok Inc. remains the primary historical defendant for pre–January 22, 2026 conduct and knowledge. Second, successor theories against the Joint Venture should emphasize assumption and voidable transfer, not bare “mere continuation,” given Minn. Stat. § 302A.661’s narrowing of de facto merger and continuation liability for covered asset dispositions. Choice of law for the Delaware conversion remains an open issue and requires additional research. Third, preserve FAC paragraph 26 continuation liability for post-formation operations and injunction against the current U.S. operator even if successor money theories partially fail.

E. Strategic snapshot

TikTok wins later by reframing design as content, LIVE as third-party predation, and deception as Guideline notice; by sandwiching Anderson, Moody, Bonta, Force, and Grindr; by fogging causation under Group Health; by casting Count VII as processor and closed-loop activity; by collapsing remedies around Prayer paragraph 6; and by walling the Joint Venture while burning time on fees. Minnesota must proceed with a three-module record that never needs a particular video to be bad. 1. Design. Prove compulsive product architecture—habit loops, engagement metrics, notifications, infinite scroll, and teen cohort effects—as TikTok’s own conduct under Counts I and II. 2. LIVE-currency. Prove LIVE monetization and Coin-to-Gift-to-Diamond-to-cash-out mechanics as TikTok’s own systems under Counts III, IV, and VII. 3. Deception. Prove Minnesota-facing safety and well-being statements against internal knowledge under Counts V and VI, as TikTok’s own speech. Using these modules, answer TikTok’s content-identification discovery fork in writing; assemble a sister-state insulation packet keyed to Index 148; build a Minnesota spine of users, ads, commissions, Terms, LIVE incidents, Coin spend, and Minnesota-facing statements; complete an MTL money map that survives Apple and Google by proving ledger control, Gift-to-Diamond mechanics, and cash-out; use a remedy ladder of Minnesota practice bans, disgorgement, and calibrated penalty units; and keep an entity ladder that holds TikTok Inc. for historical money, the Joint Venture for successor or FAC paragraph 26 continuation, and AG control documented if Affirmative Defense 17 is pressed. Settlement leverage peaks before September 18, 2026, on authenticated internals, Minnesota nexus, and the MTL map. Count VII and LIVE, with Utah support, may move money and practice changes faster than pure addiction-science fights. A sky-high per-child demand letter or overbroad injunction hardens TikTok’s appellate posture and reduces settlement optionality.