Introduction

In this en banc decision, the Nevada Supreme Court denied TikTok’s petition for extraordinary writ relief, leaving intact a district court order that refused to dismiss the State of Nevada’s consumer-protection suit under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The State alleges that TikTok’s platform deploys harmful, addictive design features aimed at young users and that TikTok misrepresented or omitted material facts about youth safety. TikTok challenged (1) personal jurisdiction, and (2) immunity under both the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 and the First Amendment.

The opinion breaks ground in two principal ways:

• Personal jurisdiction: Nevada endorses the view that a web-based company’s data collection and targeted marketing toward forum residents can satisfy Calder’s “express aiming” requirement—even without “differential” state-specific targeting—thus allowing specific jurisdiction over nationwide platforms that systematically serve and monetize a state market.
• Substantive defenses: The court holds that, at the pleading stage, neither CDA § 230 nor the First Amendment bars state-law NDTPA claims that target:
  • the platform’s own allegedly misleading statements and omissions about youth safety; and
  • content-neutral design features alleged to harm young users, where compliance would not require altering or removing third-party content.

The case is procedurally notable as well: although writ review of denials of motions to dismiss is uncommon, the court accepted review given the importance of the issues and the need for clarification.

Summary of the Opinion

• Writ posture: Petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus denied; the court exercised discretionary review given the statewide importance of the questions presented.
• Personal jurisdiction: Specific jurisdiction is proper. TikTok purposefully directed conduct at Nevada by collecting Nevada users’ data and selling targeted advertising to reach those users, coupled with Nevada-focused outreach (e.g., billboards, PTA engagement). The State’s claims “relate to” these purposeful contacts under Ford Motor Co., even though the design and statements originated outside Nevada.
• CDA § 230: Not a bar at the pleading stage. The NDTPA misrepresentation claim targets TikTok’s own statements; the design claim targets platform features (e.g., endless scroll, autoplay, push notifications, quantified popularity, coins, ephemeral content, filters, and allegedly misleading parental controls/well-being prompts). These duties do not treat TikTok as a publisher of third-party content.
• First Amendment: Not a bar as pleaded. Alleged misleading commercial statements about safety are unprotected. The design-based claim targets content-neutral features and does not regulate curation or the ideological “mix” of third-party speech; Moody v. NetChoice is distinguishable.
• Concurrence: Justice Pickering invites future reconsideration of Nevada’s plaintiff-burden standard for personal-jurisdiction motions (Trump v. Eighth Judicial District Court), suggesting alignment with the prevailing federal approach that accepts well-pleaded, uncontroverted allegations without requiring additional evidence at the motion stage.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Calder v. Jones (U.S. 1984) and Burger King v. Rudzewicz (U.S. 1985): Provide the “purposeful direction” framework for intentional torts. Nevada applies Calder’s three-part effects test: intentional act, express aiming at the forum, and knowledge that harm is likely to be suffered in the forum. The court emphasizes the need to look to the defendant’s contacts with the state itself rather than incidental contacts with residents.
• Briskin v. Shopify (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc): Pivotal for “express aiming” in the digital economy. The Nevada Supreme Court adopts Briskin’s logic that data extraction and targeted marketing to a forum’s residents—integral to a web-based business model—can satisfy the express-aiming prong without requiring state-specific or differential targeting. This directly undercuts the argument that “we operate everywhere” defeats purposeful direction.
• Mavrix Photo v. Brand Techs. (9th Cir. 2011): A passive, globally accessible website is not enough for express aiming. Nevada acknowledges that mere app downloads or general accessibility do not equal “physical presence,” but distinguishes TikTok’s operation because it purposefully harvests Nevada user data and sells Nevada-targeted advertising.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (U.S. 2021): Clarifies that claims that “relate to” forum contacts satisfy specific jurisdiction even without strict but-for causation. Nevada analogizes TikTok’s pervasive, purposeful digital presence in Nevada (data collection and ad monetization from over a million Nevada users) to Ford’s systematic servicing of the Montana and Minnesota markets.
• Barnes v. Yahoo! (9th Cir. 2009), Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003): Define the scope of CDA § 230 immunity and “traditional editorial functions.” Nevada uses Barnes’s three-part test and distinguishes claims based on a platform’s own statements or design duties from claims treating the platform as the publisher of third-party content.
• Lemmon v. Snap (9th Cir. 2021): A cornerstone for design-based claims. The duty not to design an unreasonably dangerous product exists independent of publishing decisions; compliance does not require altering user content. Nevada applies Lemmon to hold that the State’s design theory is not publisher liability.
• Estate of Bride v. Yolo Techs. (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied 2025: Supports misrepresentation theories based on the platform’s own promises, which can create duties distinct from editorial functions—relevant to Nevada’s NDTPA misrepresentation count.
• Doe 1 v. Twitter (9th Cir. 2025): § 230 does not bar a design-defect claim targeting reporting infrastructure for child exploitation, where compliance would not entail removing or policing content. Nevada invokes this to reinforce the design-versus-publication distinction.
• Moody v. NetChoice (U.S. 2024): Recognizes editorial curation of third-party speech as protected expression but expressly leaves open how the First Amendment applies to algorithms that respond solely to user behavior. Nevada distinguishes Moody because the State disclaims content regulation and instead targets content-neutral design features alleged to foster addictive use by minors.
• Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. PSC (U.S. 1980): Misleading commercial speech is not protected. Nevada uses this to sustain NDTPA claims premised on allegedly misleading safety statements.
• Nevada authorities on procedure and standards:
  • NRS 14.065(1): Nevada’s long-arm statute extends to constitutional limits.
  • Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas: At the motion to dismiss stage, allegations are taken as true and inferences drawn for the plaintiff.
  • Tricarichi, Burgauer Trust: De novo review and the three-part specific jurisdiction test (purposeful direction, relation, and reasonableness).
  • Heights of Summerlin and Nelson v. Burr: De novo review on immunity and NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissals.
  • Milender v. Marcum: Appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds.
  • Trump v. Eighth Judicial District Court: Plaintiff’s burden to produce “some evidence” of jurisdictional facts—flagged in concurrence for potential reexamination.

Legal Reasoning

1) Specific Personal Jurisdiction

The court applies the familiar three-part framework. On the first prong—purposeful direction via Calder—the court rejects the district court’s view that app downloads into Nevada devices establish a “physical presence.” Instead, the court grounds express aiming in TikTok’s business model: collecting Nevada users’ data and selling targeted advertising that reaches Nevada users, all while actively cultivating Nevada engagement (billboards; PTA outreach) and knowing of the platform’s substantial Nevada user base, including minors.

Citing Briskin v. Shopify, the court underscores that requiring “differential targeting” would perversely shield nationwide platforms from specific jurisdiction in every state. The conduct that matters is the deliberate engagement of the forum market—here, the harvesting and monetization of Nevada users’ attention and data—rather than the global accessibility of the app.

On the second prong—arising from or relating to—Ford Motor controls. The State’s NDTPA claims relate to TikTok’s systematic service of the Nevada market: design features and safety statements allegedly intended to increase minors’ time-on-platform for ad revenue tie directly to the data-collection and ad-sales engine TikTok ran in Nevada. Even if the design decisions and statements were made elsewhere, the claims maintain a “strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” TikTok did not meaningfully contest reasonableness (the third prong), and nothing in the record showed jurisdiction would be unfair.

2) CDA § 230

Applying Barnes’s three-part test, the court asks whether the State seeks to treat TikTok as a publisher of information provided by another content provider. It separates the NDTPA claims:

• Misrepresentation/omission claim (NRS 598.091): Targets TikTok’s own statements and omissions about youth safety (community guidelines, “Youth Safety and Well-Being” statements, testimony and presentations). The State references third-party content only as context showing that TikTok’s assurances were materially misleading. This is not publisher liability.
• Design-based “unconscionable practices” claim (NRS 598.0923): Targets content-neutral design features alleged to cause harm to minors (endless scroll, autoplay, quantified popularity and “coins,” ephemeral content and livestreaming, push notifications, cosmetic filters, and allegedly ineffective or misleading controls/well-being features). Consistent with Lemmon v. Snap, the asserted duty—to design a reasonably safe product—does not require altering or removing user content and therefore does not treat TikTok as a publisher.

The court analogizes to Estate of Bride v. Yolo Techs. (platform’s own promises may create duties) and Doe 1 v. Twitter (design-defect claims targeting reporting infrastructure are not barred by § 230). It distinguishes Moody v. NetChoice, emphasizing that Nevada is not attempting to control the ideological mix or curation of third-party speech. The bottom line: at the pleadings stage, it is not “beyond doubt” that § 230 defeats these NDTPA claims.

3) First Amendment

Two strands of analysis resolve the First Amendment defense:

• Misrepresentation claim: Inherently or materially misleading commercial speech is unprotected (Central Hudson). The State alleges concrete, affirmative safety assurances that go beyond aspirational puffery and conflict with internal knowledge of youth risks.
• Design claim: The State’s theory targets content-neutral platform features designed to maximize engagement by minors. Curation and ideological balancing (the core of Moody) are not at issue. The Supreme Court in Moody expressly reserved questions about algorithms that “respond solely to how users act online,” and the Ninth Circuit suggests in NetChoice v. Bonta that the expressiveness of algorithms is fact-intensive. On the pleadings, the claim regulates product design, not expression.

4) Procedural Posture and Standards

The court accepts writ review because the issues are important and recurrent. It applies de novo review to personal-jurisdiction and immunity rulings and reaffirms Nevada’s liberal notice-pleading standard—dismissal is proper only if no set of facts would entitle the State to relief. Justice Pickering’s concurrence signals openness to harmonizing Nevada’s personal-jurisdiction pleading burdens with the federal approach (accepting well-pleaded, uncontroverted allegations without requiring early evidentiary proffers).

Impact

Personal Jurisdiction in the Digital Economy

• Data targeting as “express aiming”: Nevada’s explicit endorsement of Briskin’s approach will make it easier for state enforcers and private plaintiffs to establish specific jurisdiction over nationwide platforms whose core business model entails collecting local user data and selling targeted ads—even absent state-specific, differential targeting.
• Global reach is not immunity: The “we operate everywhere” argument no longer insulates platforms from forum-specific suits tied to their monetization of local audiences.
• Digital “systematic service” equals Ford’s market presence: Courts may analogize pervasive platform engagement, data collection, and ad monetization to a manufacturer’s statewide sales/service network, satisfying Ford’s “relates to” prong.
• Procedural trajectory: The Pickering concurrence invites potential relaxation of Nevada’s evidentiary burden on plaintiffs at the motion stage, which, if adopted later, would further ease early jurisdictional showings.

Contours of CDA § 230 Post-Moody

• Design-versus-publication distinction solidifies: Following Lemmon, Bride, and Doe 1 v. Twitter, Nevada confirms that § 230 does not bar claims targeting a platform’s own product design choices or its own misrepresentations—even when third-party content is part of the factual background.
• Compliance without content removal is key: If the alleged duty can be satisfied without altering, removing, or curating user content, § 230 is less likely to apply.
• Broader enforcement space for state AGs: Consumer-protection suits that focus on platform design or safety representations now have a clearer path past § 230 at the pleadings stage in Nevada courts.

First Amendment and Platform Design

• Commercial speech limits: Safety claims or assurances that are alleged to be materially misleading will not receive First Amendment protection.
• Design features are not per se speech: Content-neutral features (endless scroll, autoplay, engagement metrics, push notifications, filters) may be regulated via generally applicable consumer-protection laws without implicating editorial curation concerns central to Moody.
• Open questions: As the Supreme Court noted in Moody, whether certain recommendation algorithms are expressive remains unsettled and fact-specific. Future cases may draw lines between “expressive curation” and “behavioral optimization” engines.

Practical Takeaways for Platforms and Litigants

• Design audits matter: Engagement-maximizing features that predictably heighten youth risk could support design-based claims. “Well-being” features must be effective, not illusory.
• Mind your promises: Public-facing safety statements, community guidelines, and testimony can create enforceable expectations; avoid broad assurances that conflict with known risks.
• Jurisdiction planning: Targeted ads, local outreach, and knowledge of a substantial user base can anchor specific jurisdiction. Expect discovery into data flows, ad targeting, and in-state monetization.
• Pleading strategies: Plaintiffs should frame duties as arising from platform design and the platform’s own statements, not from content moderation or curation, to sidestep § 230 and First Amendment defenses at the outset.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• NDTPA (Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act): Nevada’s consumer-protection statute prohibiting deceptive or unconscionable practices, including misrepresentations and certain unfair design-driven practices that exploit consumers.
• Specific personal jurisdiction: A state court’s power to hear a case against an out-of-state defendant based on claim-linked contacts with the forum. For intentional torts, the Calder test asks whether the defendant (1) acted intentionally, (2) aimed conduct at the forum, and (3) knew harm was likely there.
• “Relates to” (Ford Motor): Claims can “relate to” forum contacts without strict causation when the defendant systematically serves the forum market for the product or service at issue.
• CDA § 230 immunity: Shields online service providers from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of third-party content. It does not immunize a platform’s own content, promises, or product design duties.
• Traditional editorial functions: Reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or remove content. Claims targeting these functions typically implicate § 230 and the First Amendment.
• Design-based claims: Allegations that the product (here, the platform) is defectively designed—e.g., features that foreseeably cause harm. Such claims can be resolved without altering third-party content.
• Commercial speech: Speech proposing a commercial transaction. Misleading commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
• Content-neutral regulation: Laws or claims that regulate conduct or features without reference to the content or viewpoint of speech (e.g., regulating push notifications or autoplay irrespective of the message being displayed).

Conclusion

TikTok v. Eighth Judicial District Court marks a significant evolution in Nevada’s approach to both personal jurisdiction in the digital era and the boundary lines of CDA § 230 and the First Amendment in platform litigation. The court:

• Endorses data collection and targeted advertising as “express aiming” sufficient for specific jurisdiction, rejecting the notion that nationwide operations evade forum accountability absent differential targeting.
• Confirms that NDTPA claims focused on a platform’s own safety representations and content-neutral design features can proceed past the pleadings without being barred by § 230 or the First Amendment.
• Applies Ford Motor’s “relates to” standard to a digital business model, analogizing pervasive data monetization of local users to physical market service networks.

The decision opens a clearer path for state consumer-protection actions against social media platforms where the claims sound in design defects and misrepresentation rather than editorial curation. At the same time, it leaves room for future doctrinal development—particularly on the First Amendment status of recommendation algorithms and on Nevada’s procedural burden for personal jurisdiction challenges, as flagged in the concurrence. For platforms, the ruling underscores that product design and public assurances about youth safety are not insulated by § 230 or the First Amendment; for enforcers and consumers, it provides a robust framework to test those issues on the merits.