Florida's attorney general filed a civil suit on Monday accusing TikTok of violating a state law that bars children under the age of 14 from having social media accounts. The complaint, lodged in St. Lucie County state court, names TikTok - owned by ByteDance - and alleges the platform allows underage users to access the service while downplaying the extent to which young people are exposed to violent and sexual material.
The lawsuit was brought by Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier. In a statement accompanying the filing, he said, "TikTok knowingly deceives parents and allows children to be exposed to harmful and inappropriate content in direct violation of Florida law. We have zero tolerance for companies that prioritize profit over childrens safety." The complaint requests a court order requiring TikTok to alter its practices to comply with state law and seeks financial damages.
TikTok did not immediately provide a comment in response to requests for reaction to the filing.
This case extends a broader pattern of litigation involving TikTok. According to the complaint and related court filings, more than 25 state attorneys general around the United States have sued TikTok, saying its design intentionally fosters addiction among young users and contributes to a mental health crisis among children and teenagers. Most of those cases proceed under state consumer protection statutes.
Beyond state attorney general actions, TikTok and other major social platforms face thousands of private lawsuits brought by individuals and school districts. These suits generally challenge the platforms' impact on young users' well-being. The companies named in such litigation - including TikTok and the parent of Facebook and Instagram, Meta Platforms - have denied the allegations and maintain that they implement extensive measures to protect teens and young users on their services.
The Florida filing references prior litigation and trial outcomes. In an earlier trial in Los Angeles involving claims by a young woman who said she developed depression and anxiety after becoming addicted to social media platforms at a young age, a jury found Meta and Alphabet's Google negligent. TikTok was a defendant in that matter but reached a settlement before the case went to trial. Separately, TikTok settled another pretrial case brought by a Kentucky school district, agreeing to pay $8 million.
The statute Florida cites in its complaint is H.B. 3. The law requires social media platforms to bar users under 14 years old and to obtain parental consent for users under 16. H.B. 3 took effect in January 2025, and it forms the legal foundation for Florida's current action against TikTok.
Florida's suit follows an earlier 2025 lawsuit the state filed against Snap, the owner of Snapchat. In that complaint, Florida accused Snap of employing features that intentionally addict children and of creating accounts for users aged 13 and younger. The Florida filing characterized Snap's conduct as "particularly egregious," arguing the company markets the service as safe for 13-year-olds even while it can be used to access pornography, obtain illegal drugs, and facilitate other harmful activities, according to the state's allegations.
Snap has argued in court that Florida's law infringes on children's First Amendment rights. That litigation remains active, based on court records. A Florida federal judge initially ruled that enforcement of the law was unconstitutional and blocked it. That injunction has since been temporarily stayed, permitting Florida to enforce H.B. 3 while the state appeals the federal judge's ruling.
The suit against TikTok adds to a patchwork of regulatory and legal pressure facing major social media companies at the state level. Florida's action seeks both injunctive relief to force changes in platform practices and monetary damages, leaving open the potential for extended litigation as courts consider constitutional and statutory challenges to the state's approach.
Contextual note: The complaint and the proceedings it initiates cite H.B. 3 as the controlling state statute and rely on prior litigation and settlements to support the state's allegations. The course and outcome of this suit will depend on developments in the state court process and on concurrent constitutional challenges in federal courts.