Florida has filed a new lawsuit against TikTok, alleging the social media platform allowed underage users to access its services and misrepresented the risks children face on the app despite a state law aimed at protecting minors online.
Florida Alleges TikTok Violated Child Social Media Law
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced Monday that the state sued TikTok in St. Lucie County state court, accusing the ByteDance-owned platform of violating Florida's social media restrictions for minors.
According to the complaint, TikTok permitted children younger than 14 to create and maintain accounts, despite a state law that prohibits social media platforms from offering accounts to users in that age group.
The lawsuit also alleges the company misled parents about the amount of violent, sexual and other potentially harmful content accessible to young users.
The state is seeking financial damages and a court order requiring TikTok to modify its practices to comply with Florida law.
TikTok Defends Safety Measures For Young Users
In response, TikTok said it has been working with Florida officials and has already notified users under 14 in the state that their accounts would be suspended, Reuters reported.
The company said it continues to update its platform to meet legal requirements in Florida and is prepared to defend its record on child safety.
TikTok did not immediately respond to Benzinga's request for comments.
Florida's Social Media Restrictions Face Legal Challenge
The lawsuit centers on Florida's H.B. 3 law, which took effect in January 2025. The measure bars children younger than 14 from holding social media accounts and requires parental consent for users under 16.
The case comes as TikTok faces similar legal challenges from more than two dozen state attorneys general who have accused the platform of using addictive features that can negatively affect young users' mental health.
Other social media companies, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
While a federal judge previously ruled Florida's law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, that decision is currently on hold, allowing the state to continue enforcing the measure during the appeals process.
