New Hampshire court ruling puts TikTok’s design and free speech under fire

07/19/2025 / By Belle Carter

A New Hampshire court ruled that TikTok’s design features (e.g., algorithms, infinite scroll) can be treated as a dangerous product rather than protected speech, enabling government regulation of platform mechanics under product liability law.
The court rejected TikTok’s free speech and Section 230 defenses, arguing the lawsuit targets the app’s design – not content – potentially setting a precedent for similar nationwide lawsuits.
The state cites internal TikTok research alleging the platform knowingly deployed features (e.g., beauty filters, notifications) that harm minors’ mental health, with studies showing prolonged usage and low compliance with break reminders.
The case reflects a broader movement to regulate tech by classifying platform algorithms as public health hazards, sidestepping traditional content moderation frameworks and threatening internet openness.
The ruling could empower governments to reshape online spaces in the name of safety, risking innovation and user autonomy while redefining the legal future of digital discourse.

A New Hampshire court has opened the door to unprecedented government oversight of social media platforms, ruling that TikTok’s design – not just its content – can be treated as a potentially dangerous product.

In a decision that could reshape internet regulation, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge John Kissinger allowed most of the state’s lawsuit against the platform to proceed, rejecting TikTok’s First Amendment and Section 230 defenses.

The court’s ruling hinges on a critical distinction: TikTok’s recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll and other engagement features are not protected speech but instead constitute a product – one that New Hampshire alleges is defectively designed and harmful. By framing the case this way, the state sidestepped traditional legal shields for online platforms, arguing that TikTok’s interface manipulates young users’ brains, fueling addiction and worsening mental health.

“The State’s claims are based on the App’s alleged defective and dangerous features, not the information contained therein,” Kissinger wrote. This reasoning, if adopted elsewhere, could empower regulators to demand changes to core platform functions under product liability law rather than through content moderation rules.

New Hampshire’s lawsuit cites internal TikTok research to bolster its claims. The state alleges the company knew certain features – like beauty filters and relentless notifications – posed risks to minors but deployed them anyway. One cited study found only 12 percent of users heeded TikTok’s “Take a Break” reminders, while 55 percent kept scrolling for over 45 minutes. With over 92,000 teen users in the state, officials argue these design choices have contributed to rising anxiety and depression rates. (Related: EU launches second probe into Tiktok over allegations the social media giant illegally stored European user data in China.)

First Amendment and Section 230 protections erode

The judge dismissed TikTok’s argument that the suit violates its First Amendment rights, writing that the state’s duty to warn about “dangers allegedly created by Defendants in the operation of their platforms” isn’t barred by free speech protections. Equally significant, the court rejected TikTok’s reliance on Section 230 – the law shielding platforms from liability for third-party content – because the case targets the app’s architecture, not specific posts. Legal experts warn this could invite similar lawsuits nationwide, pressuring platforms to overhaul their designs preemptively.

This case reflects a growing movement to regulate tech, not through censorship, but by redefining platform mechanics as public health hazards. Indiana’s recent lawsuits against TikTok, accusing it of exposing minors to adult content and misleading users about data access, follow a similar playbook. If courts increasingly treat algorithmic curation as a “safety” issue, the internet’s foundational openness – and the legal frameworks protecting it – could unravel.

The New Hampshire ruling signals a pivotal moment in the clash between free speech and digital regulation. By reclassifying app design as a product flaw rather than protected expression, courts may empower governments to reshape online spaces in the name of safety, potentially at the cost of innovation and user autonomy.

As states escalate legal attacks on TikTok and other platforms, the outcome could determine whether the internet remains a forum for open discourse or a tightly controlled utility governed by liability lawsuits. The battle over TikTok’s algorithm is now a proxy war for the soul of the web itself.

Watch the video below that talks about the SCOTUS banning TikTok in the United States.

This video is from the TrendingNews channel on Brighteon.com.