Yeah, I’m not sure this is going to hold up, but it does add to the steadily mounting case against TikTok in the U.S.

The state of Utah has this week filed legal action against TikTok, and parent company ByteDance, over the app’s use of algorithmic sorting, based on user engagement, to create an addictive experience, especially for younger users.

As reported by Reuters:

Utah's case in state court said the videos use 'highly powerful algorithms and manipulative design features--many of which mimic features of slot machines' and the result 'of these manipulative tactics is that young consumers become hooked.'

Which is only partially true, but then again, as an entertainment medium funded by ads, TikTok's business model is to show users more of what they like and less of what they don't. Which is much like regular TV, and as such, I don't think that TikTok's processes will meet the legal requirements for deceptive practices, though it will be interesting to see what, exactly, the case is against the platform in this respect.

Utah seeks civil penalties and an injunction that would prohibit TikTok from engaging in further violations of state laws around deceptive business practices going forward.

This is similar to other state-based legal challenges that TikTok is facing in the United States.

Indiana sued TikTok late last year for exposing minors to inappropriate content and making user data accessible in China. Other lawsuits include one Arkansas filed against the TikTok app and Facebook regarding mental health impacts and privacy issues.
Some other claims state that these social media platforms are using features that are "addictive and intended to manipulate users' brains by triggering dopamine.".

Also true, but again, the legal technicalities here will be important in establishing when a product or service goes from being "compelling" to "addictive," and what constitutes deceptive practices in this regard.

Technical terminology for most of this legislation refers to drug use generally, so "addiction" refers to the "chronic or habitual use of any chemical substance to alter states of body or mind for other than medically warranted purposes." In this case, that chemical substance would presumably be dopamine, with social media outlets igniting what might amount to addictive dopamine release.

And there is legal precedent for such.
In 2012, a French man successfully sued pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline after a drug that he was prescribed to treat Parkinson's disease led to him developing harmful compulsive behaviors, as a result of the drug activating his dopamine receptors. Several other patients suffering from Parkinson's have also been able to provide legal grounds for the same, which proves that a company can be sued for causing harm by inducing dopamine response.

But in all of those cases, that was done artificially, directly stimulating dopamine receptors by chemical stimulants. In which case, there's a more direct link to the legal definition, but drawing that same connection to online algorithms seems like a stretch.

In any case, it's another legal fight for TikTok to deal with, one that is still also facing a total ban in the state of Montana from next year-one which it is also disputing-and a possible total ban in the US, with the White House still debating its decision on the app.

That will depend on an eventual ruling by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has been analysing the app for nearly three years, but been held up by a variety of legal and legislative hurdles.

While more recent moves may lay the groundwork for an alternative path forward on a full TikTok ban, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo last week publicly came out in support of a new bill that could give that agency expanded authority to take action against TikTok and other foreign-based apps.

That too is bound to be subject to further hurdles and political wrangling. Yet at its heart, the axe remains poised over TikTok in the U.S., and if America does seek to execute the app, you can put your money on other countries quickly rushing to replicate the move.

But it is still to be determined whether the sterner measures will be reserved for when there's a clear, obvious rationale. The U.S. government has been leery of taking dramatic steps against TikTok lest they adversely impact already-suspect U.S.-China relations, but if the calculus of the case were to change, perhaps by China raising the level of its support for Russia's actions in Ukraine, that stance could change overnight.

As you may recall, the last big push to ban TikTok in the U.S. came shortly after U.S. military planes shot down a spy balloon that reportedly originated from China. With heightened concern, a full ban becomes more viable, but without such an impetus, it remains unclear if the U.S. officials view it as a major priority and concern.

But TikTok is banned on all devices managed by the government; so there is obviously still a level of apprehension still. One more push and we might indeed see that the bigger actions are taken, with those smaller, state-based court cases piling up the case against the app, and keeping it in the heads of federal representatives.

In short, I am far from convinced this new case will lead to an even further ban of TikTok in the U.S. -- or even in these specific states, for that matter, save perhaps Montana.

But it is yet another reminder that the app could very easily be gone, overnight, based on broader geopolitical change.