State v. Tiktok
24-cv-3984
Vt. Super. Ct.Jun 26, 2025Background
- The State of Vermont brought a case against TikTok, Inc., alleging violations of Vermont's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) through unfair and deceptive practices, including platform designs harmful to children, operating an unlicensed money transmitter (linked to TikTok LIVE), and making misleading statements about safety and profits.
- TikTok moved to dismiss the case, challenging the Vermont court's personal jurisdiction over it, and simultaneously sought a stay of proceedings pending a Vermont Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving Meta Platforms/Instagram.
- In the Meta case, the Chittenden trial court denied Meta's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, leading Meta to seek and obtain interlocutory review on that issue before the Vermont Supreme Court.
- The Vermont Superior Court was tasked with deciding whether to pause (stay) the TikTok litigation until the Supreme Court resolved the novel jurisdictional question in the Meta case, given the questions about how far Vermont courts' personal jurisdiction could reach over national social media companies.
- The State argued against delay, citing the public interest and urgency in addressing alleged consumer harms; TikTok argued judicial efficiency and fairness required a stay, to avoid needless litigation if the court ultimately had no jurisdiction.
- The Court found that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Meta case would likely offer important guidance for resolving the jurisdictional issue in TikTok’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should this case be stayed pending resolution of the Meta personal jurisdiction appeal? | Urgency of consumer protection/interests of justice; harms of delaying relief outweigh any inefficiency. | Substantial overlap of jurisdictional issues with Meta; efficiency and fairness favor a stay. | Granted; a stay is warranted to await Supreme Court guidance on jurisdiction, saving resources and avoiding premature litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (establishes court authority to stay proceedings for judicial efficiency and the need to balance hardships)
- Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (permits trial courts to stay cases in light of independent proceedings that may affect the case)
- Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (outlines factors for courts to weigh when deciding whether to grant a stay)