Indiana Supreme Court Justices, left to right, Geoffrey Slaughter, Mark Massa, Loretta Rush, Derek Molter, Christopher Goff Photo from Supreme Court Flickr.

By Niki Kelly
Indiana Capital Chronicle

INDIANAPOLIS — Hours after hearing arguments, the Indiana Supreme Court declined transfer in the state’s challenge against TikTok — clearing the way for Attorney General Todd Rokita to proceed in his case against the popular, short-form video app.

Rokita’s office filed two lawsuits in 2022, accusing TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, of violating Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act with its age rating for those 12 and older — claiming that it contained more sexual content, profanity and drug references than advertised.

That made TikTok unsafe for children, he continued. Additionally, he claimed in a separate lawsuit that the company failed to protect user data from the Chinese Communist Party.

An Allen County trial judge initially dismissed the cases before the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and said the state had jurisdiction to bring the action.

TikTok appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court to dismiss the case, but the justices declined the case by a vote of 3-2. That leaves in place the appellate decision allowing the matter to move forward.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justices Mark Massa and Derek Molter voted to deny, while Justices Christopher Goff and Geoffrey Slaughter would have allowed the appeal.

Attorney Brian Paul, representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued that the Indiana Supreme Court wasn’t the appropriate venue for the case, which is the first issue before the justices.

“Indiana is seeking to punish TikTok for statements that were not made in Indiana, that are not about Indiana, that were not targeted at Indiana and were not tailored to Indiana,” Paul said in his opening remarks.

The state previously argued that justices could intervene because Hoosiers enter into user contracts with TikTok when they download the app.

“TikTok seeks to escape the rules that apply to everyone else, from print magazines to burger franchises,” said Solicitor General James Barta, arguing on behalf of the state.

Barta said that these “daily exchange(s) of data” are used by the plaintiffs to craft “addictive content” based on user locations to earn millions.