Ark. Case vs. TikTok ‘Pure Matter of State Law,’ Says State’s Motion to Remand

The complaint from Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) alleging TikTok is violating the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by duping Arkansas citizens about the risks of using TikTok is “a run-of-the-mill state-court case,” said Griffin’s brief Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01038) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in El Dorado in support of his motion to remand. Griffin wants the case returned to Union County Circuit Court where it originated March 28 before TikTok removed it to federal court May 9 (see 2305100036). TikTok argues the case belongs in federal court “because TikTok’s conduct also implicates foreign policy and national-security issues that the federal government might address,” said the brief. “In other words, TikTok argues that the sheer scope of the problems it has created enables it to choose its preferred forum,” it said. The argument is “meritless," as another federal court “recently recognized in the exact same posture,” it said. Indiana also sued TikTok for violating that state’s consumer-protection law, it said. “As in this case, Indiana alleges that TikTok collects users’ personal information without telling them that this information might be shared with China,” it said. “As in this case, TikTok removed to federal court on the theory that the state’s state-law claim arose under federal law,” creating federal-question jurisdiction under Title 28's Section 1331, it said. The court rejected that theory and remanded to state court, noting TikTok failed to point to any question of federal law that would need to be decided, it said. “That analysis necessarily applies here, where TikTok filed functionally the same Notice of Removal as it filed there,” said the brief. Federal-question jurisdiction “requires a question of federal law, “and no such question can be found” in the Arkansas complaint, it said. Whether TikTok is liable under Arkansas law for deceiving Arkansas consumers doesn’t depend “on the construction of any federal statute or other source of federal law,” it said. “Nor is it one of the limited subjects that arise under federal common law,” which the complaint doesn’t invoke, it said: “This case is a pure matter of state law and should be remanded to the state court where it was filed.”