AUSTIN — Travis County District Judge Cory Liu granted Texas partial summary judgment on Sept. 10, ruling that TikTok violated the state’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by misleading consumers about how it protects minors from inappropriate content — a first-of-its-kind liability finding that now heads to a remedies trial, according to the signed order and coverage Friday by Reuters, The Verge, and The Hill.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued TikTok and related ByteDance entities in January 2025, alleging the company marketed the app as safe for children while internal practices told a different story. Liu’s order in Cause No. D-1-GN-25-003118 (250th Judicial District) does not set fines yet. Liability is locked in on two theories; civil penalties, statutory damages, and injunctive relief go to trial — expected next month, Paxton’s office said.

TikTok did not immediately respond to Reuters outside regular business hours.

“Hard to find,” not “do not allow”

First, Texas argued TikTok told the public it would remove Community Guidelines violators — videos promoting drug use or gambling, depicting minors in a sexually suggestive manner, or showing graphic wounds and injuries — while internal moderation policies instructed staff to leave some of that material up under a “hard to find” label instead of “do not allow.” After reviewing the state’s evidence, Liu agreed Texas met its summary-judgment burden and established a DTPA violation on that theory.

That is the consumer-protection core of the case: not a speech ban fight over what TikTok must take down, but a claim that the company sold parents and users a safety story its own playbooks contradicted. Platforms that overpromise filters and under-deliver invite exactly this kind of state AG lawsuit — and once liability sticks on summary judgment, the leverage shifts hard toward penalties.

Restricted Mode that didn’t filter as sold

Second, Texas attacked TikTok’s marketing of Restricted Mode. The company claimed the feature “limits the appearance of content that may not be appropriate for all audiences” and that users “shouldn’t see mature or complex themes,” including profanity, sexually suggestive content, realistic violence, firearms in inappropriate settings, illegal drugs, and other mature references. For years, Texas said, TikTok employees internally recognized Restricted Mode was not working as marketed and still exposed users to a high volume of content that should have been filtered out.

Liu again found Texas had met its burden and established a DTPA violation. The Verge summarized the ruling Friday as sending the 2025 consumer suit to trial after the partial win on both content-moderation marketing and Restricted Mode.

“TikTok sacrificed the safety and innocence of children for engagement and numbers, and now they are being held accountable. Texas is now the first state in the nation to hold TikTok liable for lying to parents about the safety of its platform and exposing children to harmful content,” Paxton said in a Sept. 10 press release. “I will continue to go after TikTok and every social media company that exposes children to predators, inappropriate content, addictive features, or any other dangerous aspect of their platforms.”

Paxton’s office framed the outcome as a historic first among states. That framing is political theater as much as law — AGs love “first in the nation” headlines — but the order itself is narrower and more useful: two concrete marketing claims failed under Texas consumer law, with remedies still to be fought over. Skepticism cuts both ways here. TikTok’s public safety branding looks hollow if “hard to find” was the real policy. And concentrating enforcement power in a partisan AG’s office is how consumer statutes become culture-war tools. Parents still deserve not to be lied to about what Restricted Mode actually does.

Separately, Reuters noted TikTok in August agreed to settle three U.S. lawsuits by young people alleging addictive design and mental-health harm, while Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle related addiction claims — context for how expensive youth-safety litigation has become across Big Tech.

Sources