Arkansas Supreme Court decides TikTok vs. Arkansas case will go forward, denies dismissal request
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – The Arkansas Supreme Court denied a request on behalf of the social media app TikTok to have the Arkansas lawsuit against it thrown out.
The Arkansas lawsuit was filed in 2023 by Attorney General Tim Griffin. It charged TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, with violating the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
Arkansas AG Tim Griffin joins 41 other AGs calling for congressional requirement for social media surgeon general warning
The suit claimed that TikTok violated the DTPA by misrepresenting itself and, in turn, exposing minors to mature content and engineered its platform to compel people to remain engaged. This has gone so far as to harm young people, the suit alleged, as they responded to various and dangerous 'TikTok challenges.'
The suit was filed in the Cleburne County District Court, where attorneys for TikTok requested that the suit be dismissed, arguing that Arkansas had not established jurisdiction or a claim for relief. The court rejected the argument, meaning the case proceeded, and that ruling was subsequently appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
CVS Pharmacy files suit against Arkansas over new law preventing PBM ownership of pharmacies
On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, a request that the Supreme Court force the Circuit Court to rule in TikTok's favor, stating that such a ruling would be inappropriate under Arkansas precedent.
Griffin was pleased with the Thursday ruling.
'Today's ruling allows our lawsuit against TikTok to move forward,' Griffin said. 'This moves us one step closer to holding TikTok accountable for deceiving Arkansans, especially children and their parents, about its app.'
Arkansas filing suit against Meta, TikTok under Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Court records indicate that the case is scheduled to be heard on Sept. 29 in a jury trial expected to last three weeks.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
31 minutes ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Why redistricting is so important, in 3 charts
Texas Republicans' move to redraw their congressional map mid-decade and Democrats' retaliatory redistricting efforts have captured national attention for a very simple reason: How House districts are drawn can shape American politics for years. Gerrymandering generally reduces the number of competitive races, and it can lock in nearly immovable advantages for one party or another. Under the new map proposed in Texas, no seat's presidential vote would have been decided by single digits in 2024, and Republicans would have a path to pad their narrow congressional majority in the 2026 midterm elections. This means more people could reside in congressional districts under solid control of one party. NBC News analyzed how the question of who draws the maps — and how they do it — can shape elections for years afterward. The difference between safe seats and competitive districts Who draws district lines can make the difference between contested general elections in a state in November and elections that are barely more than formalities. NBC News analyzed every House race in the country from 2012 to 2020, the last full 10-year redistricting cycle, based on how each district was drawn. In states where state legislators drew the maps, single-digit races (elections in which the winners won by less than 10 percentage points) were rarest. Only 10.7% of House races fell into that competitive category. There are plenty of reasons that don't involve gerrymandering. For one thing, voters of both parties have increasingly clustered in recent years, leaving fewer places around the country that are politically divided. Still, gerrymandering does play a significant role. When commissions or state or federal courts drew the lines last decade, the rate of competitive elections jumped, though safe seats are still overwhelmingly likely. Competitive elections were especially prevalent in states with court-drawn districts: 18.1% of races in those states had single-digit margins from 2012 through 2020. A look at Pennsylvania, whose legislative-drawn map was thrown out and replaced in 2018 by the state Supreme Court, illustrates the dramatic change that can come based on who draws congressional lines. The same state with the same voters living in the same places suddenly had many more competitive elections. From 2012 through 2016, just three of Pennsylvania's 54 House general elections under the initial map had single-digit margins. After the state Supreme Court threw out the map and imposed a new one, the number of battleground races bumped up. Eight of 36 House races had single-digit margins in 2018 and 2020. Meanwhile, ahead of the 2026 midterms, The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates 40 House districts as toss-ups or slightly leaning toward one party. More than half (23) of those 40 competitive districts are in states where commissions or courts drew the maps. How a state's partisanship compares with whom it sends to Congress The power of the redistricting process can bend a state's representation in Congress away from its overall partisanship, with wide differences between the statewide vote in some states and the makeup of their House delegations. Take Illinois, for example, where Donald Trump got 44% of the vote in 2024. Republicans hold only three of the state's 17 seats in Congress, or 18%. (NBC News is looking at presidential data instead of House data here because some races are uncontested.) And even though Trump got 38% of the vote in California last year, Republicans hold only 17% — that's nine seats — of the state's 52 congressional districts. On the other side of the ledger, Trump got 58% support in South Carolina last year, and 86% of the state's House delegation is Republican. In North Carolina, 51% voted for Trump last year, and Republicans have 71% of the delegation. The comparison between House seats and presidential election performance isn't perfect. But it demonstrates that how district lines are drawn can generate different results from what statewide results might suggest. Right in the middle of the chart is Virginia. Its 11 congressional districts split 6-5 for Democrats, meaning Republicans hold nearly 46% of the state's seats in Congress, and Trump won 46% of the vote in Virginia last year. Also, just because a state's maps favor one party compared with the statewide results after one election doesn't mean the redistricting process was biased. Tightly divided Pennsylvania has seven Democrats and 10 Republicans in Congress, and three GOP-held districts are rated as toss-up or lean-Republican races in 2026, according to the Cook Political Report. Each state charts its own course Since each state is responsible for handling its own redistricting, the process is different depending on where you look, giving immense power to different institutions state by state. In 27 states, legislatures approved the maps. In seven, independent commissions approved them, seven had court-approved maps, two had political commissions, and one state's maps were approved by a backup commission, according to data from Loyola Law School. (The six states that elect only one person to the House don't draw new congressional maps.) Loyola Law School's " All About Redistricting" website defines politician commissions as panels elected officials can serve on as members. The website defines backup commissions as backup procedures if legislatures can't agree on new lines.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court 'Likely' to Deal Blow to Key Trump Policy: Ex-GOP Speaker
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday that he believes the Supreme Court is "more than likely" to strike down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law President Donald Trump has leveraged to impose sweeping tariffs, if the case reaches the High Court. Newsweek filed a contact request form for comment with Solamere Capital, where Ryan is a partner. Why It Matters Trump has repeatedly announced, imposed, paused and reinstated a slew of tariffs at varying rates on U.S. trading partners to curb immigration, drug trafficking, and reduce trade deficits. Trump's tariffs have caused the market to both slump and spike. Economists have warned that the tariffs, which are effectively a tax imposed on imported goods, will inevitably lead to increased costs for Americans. Trump has defended his policies, saying the tariffs will cause "some little pain" upfront but in the long term will be "worth the price that must be paid." The tariffs are currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard oral arguments at the end of July. At issue in the case is Trump's use of the 1977 IEEPA to impose tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. The law gives presidents broad power to impose economic sanctions during national emergencies, but Trump is the first president to use it to impose tariffs. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump at a meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House on September 5, 2018. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump at a meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House on September 5, 2018. AP Photo/Evan Vucci What To Know Ryan, who served as House speaker from 2015 to early January 2019 and chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC that he does not believe that tariffs are going to result in a settled, predictable market, noting that the "uncertainty" of tariffs is one of the biggest policy points right now. Since retiring from Congress, Ryan has been a vocal Trump critic. "It's more than likely that the Supreme Court knocks out IEEPA, the law that's being used for these tariffs, which doesn't have the word 'tariff' in it," he told CNBC. "Then, the president is going to have to go to other laws to justify tariffs—232, 201, 301. There's a bunch of laws, and those are harder laws to operate with." He called out the tariff policy as being based on Trump's "whims and opinions," and later noted that "tariffs are the wrong way to go. It makes you unproductive, it lowers living standards, it's bad for our short-term politics, bad long-term economics." In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the states and businesses that challenged Trump, ruling that Trump's April 2 "reciprocal" tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President'' under IEEPA. In the case of the tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the tariffs did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they "deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The Trump administration appealed the court's ruling, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the appeal. The case comes as the latest jobs report showed that the U.S. labor market has slowed over the past few months, with unemployment inching upward and prior job gains revised to be weaker than expected. U.S. employers added 73,000 jobs in July, far fewer than expected, while unemployment moved to 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics wrote on Friday that "Revisions for May and June were larger than normal," adding that "With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 258,000 lower than previously reported." Trump reacted to the disappointing news by firing Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whom he accused of manipulating the reports for "political purposes." What People Are Saying Judge Timothy Dyk said last week about the IEEPA case: "It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again. They were successfully used against the USA for decades and, coupled with really dumb, pathetic, and crooked politicians, we're having a devastating impact on the future, and even the survival, of our country. Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it." What Happens Next It's unclear when the appeals court will issue a ruling, but the losing side is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
