0.2: MomTok Jurisdiction
THIS WEEK: Utah goes head-to-head with TikTok, a SCOTUS recap, and an Old Bay knock-off just doesn't smell right.
Deploys continually refines, and markets an addictive product with design features intended to manipulate children, and that TikTok knows harms children, including in Utah, is an unconscionable business practice.
Misrepresents that its app is safe for use, when it knows it is not. This includes allegedly deceptively misrepresenting that it works to support the well-being of everyone on the app and addresses issues with its algorithm known to hurt user well-being, and deceptively misrepresents that it can effectively maintain a safe digital environment for children.
Avoids scrutiny from its users (and regulators) and misleads Utah consumers about the degree to which TikTok remains enmeshed with and under the control of ByteDance, its China-based parent company.
These allegations aren’t new. In fact, Indiana is currently battling it out with TikTok over very similar claims. But while these claims are not new, this flex by Utah is:
Wonder if the Influencer/MomTok test will make it’s way into a law professor’s personal jurisdiction lesson.
This week’s highlights in SCOTUS news include gerrymandering in South Carolina, whistleblower claims, FDA regulatory power over vapes, and the crown jewel of it all, choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts. Ready to make some waves (had to do it)?
In what is arguably the highest-profile argument of the week, the Court heard arguments today regarding unconstitutional gerrymandering took place in South Carolina’s 1st congressional district. The argument focuses on a newly redrawn congressional district in the Palmetto State, which shifted ~30,000 Black residents out of the district. South Carolina’s Republican lawmakers say the change was made for partisan reasons. After an eight day trial featuring 42 witnesses and 652 exhibits, a reviewing panel of judges found that race was a primary factor in the change.
However, per the Hill, during oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed doubts that South Carolina’s congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. And, while it’s possible the Court changes course before an opinion is issued, we’re not sure how likely that is.
Other SCOTUS highlights from the week:
The Justices heard arguments in Great Lakes Insurance v. Raiders Retreat Realty a case relating to whether state or federal law should govern choice-of-law provisions in maritime insurance contracts and all promptly fell asleep. Just kidding. They seemed to favor reliable enforcement.
In a win for administrative power, the Court decided not to hear a case arguing against the FDAs ability to regulate vapes.
Old Bay, New Problem
An apparel company is in hot water over an Old Bay parody sticker. McCormick, the makers of Old Bay seasoning, fired off a cease and desist letter to the sticker maker (Crabcakes & Cannabis) because, well, look at it:
Is this an overzealous company or a brand protecting their goodwill and IP? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.
Couple of 0.1s
No, Skittles aren’t banned in California – well, unless they don’t remove red dye No. 3, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, or propylparaben by 2027.
Sam Bankman-Fried’s ex-girlfriend testified that SBF thought he had a legitimate chance at becoming president. Oh, and that he also instructed her to steal customer funds.
Bill this one to us:
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Point Two is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.