Texas Judge Grants Partial Summary Judgment Against TikTok on Two Deceptive Trade Practices Claims

A Travis County judge has ruled that TikTok violated Texas consumer protection law by misrepresenting how it moderates content for minors, granting the State partial summary judgment on liability while leaving penalties and other claims undecided.

Information last verified on September 20, 2026.

Status: Partial summary judgment on liability granted to the State of Texas on two Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) theories. The order does not set a penalty amount, does not resolve any other claims in the State's lawsuit, and does not address Section 230 or the First Amendment.

Jurisdiction scope: This is a Texas state-court ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General under Texas law. It legally binds only the parties to this case. It does not change federal law, does not bind courts in other states, and does not by itself change what TikTok is required to do for users outside Texas, though platform-wide features like Restricted Mode are not state-specific.

What Happened

On September 10, 2026, Judge Cory Liu of the 250th District Court in Travis County signed an order granting the State of Texas's motion for partial summary judgment in State of Texas v. TikTok Inc., Cause No. D-1-GN-25-003118. The defendants named in the case are TikTok Inc., TikTok Ltd., TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, ByteDance Ltd. and ByteDance Inc.

The order itself is short and addresses only two issues the State asked the court to resolve before trial. Both concern whether TikTok's public representations about protecting minors matched what the platform actually did.

The content-removal representation. The State argued TikTok told users and the public it would remove video content that violated its Community Guidelines, including content promoting drug use or gambling, content depicting minors in a sexually suggestive manner, and graphic images of wounds and injuries. According to the order, the evidence showed TikTok's internal moderation policy did not actually require removal of that content. Instead, the policy allowed it to remain on the platform tagged "hard to find" rather than "do not allow." The court agreed this conduct violated the DTPA.

The Restricted Mode representation. The State's second argument concerned TikTok's "Restricted Mode" setting, which TikTok described as limiting "the appearance of content that may not be appropriate for all audiences" so that users "shouldn't see mature or complex themes" such as profanity, sexually suggestive content, realistic violence or threatening imagery, firearms in an inappropriate context, illegal drugs, and other mature subject matter. The order recites the State's argument that, for years, TikTok employees internally recognized Restricted Mode was not functioning in the way it was marketed and was exposing users to a high volume of content that should have been filtered out. The court agreed that the State had met its summary-judgment burden and established that this conduct also violated the DTPA.

The order's operative language is brief: "Texas's motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED." It resolves liability on these two theories only. It does not state a penalty amount, does not order an injunction, and does not mention what other claims remain in the State's suit or when a trial or further proceedings might occur. Because the ruling is expressly "partial," the case is not over.

What the Law Actually Says

The State's claims are brought under Chapter 17 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, known as the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Two sections of that chapter are central to how a case like this works.

Section 17.46 defines what counts as a violation. It declares "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce" unlawful, and lists more than thirty examples in Section 17.46(b). Several of the listed categories describe the general type of conduct at issue here, such as representing that goods or services have characteristics or benefits they do not have, and advertising goods or services with no intent to provide them as advertised. The order granting summary judgment does not cite a specific numbered subsection of Section 17.46(b); it holds only that the conduct described above "violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act."

Section 17.47 governs how the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division enforces the DTPA. It allows the Division to sue in the name of the State to restrain unlawful conduct through a temporary or permanent injunction, and it allows a court to award a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. If the act or practice was calculated to acquire or deprive money or property from a consumer age 65 or older, Section 17.47(c)(2) allows an additional amount of not more than $250,000. Note the difference in how the statute is drafted: subsection (c)(1) sets the $10,000 figure "per violation," while (c)(2) states the $250,000 enhancement as an additional amount without that per-violation language. Section 17.47 also lets a court order restitution to compensate identifiable consumers, though it caps recoverable damages at conduct occurring within two years before the State filed suit.

This case is a good illustration of how the DTPA's public-enforcement track differs from a private lawsuit: the Attorney General sues in the name of the State, and the statute's private right of action under a related section is separate from the injunctive and civil-penalty remedies the Attorney General is pursuing here. Texas is one of many states where the age verification landscape has been expanding to cover how platforms handle content aimed at or reachable by minors, including the state's own age verification law and its data privacy law.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The significance of this ruling is narrower than "TikTok found liable for harming kids," which is how it is likely to be summarized in headlines. What the court actually decided is a consumer-protection claim about representations: TikTok told the public its moderation worked one way, and the court found the evidence showed it worked another way internally. That is a claim about truthfulness in marketing and policy statements, not a claim that TikTok is legally responsible for what any individual user posted or viewed.

That distinction matters because it keeps this case on a different track from the federal fights over platform liability for user content, which usually run through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and from First Amendment challenges to state laws that regulate platform speech or design. The order granting summary judgment does not discuss either doctrine. It does not need to, because the State is not asking TikTok to answer for what users posted; it is asking TikTok to answer for what TikTok itself said about its own content-moderation and safety features. A company's own representations about its products are generally fair game for a state consumer-protection statute, in a way that a user's own speech usually is not.

It is also worth being precise about what remains open. "Partial" summary judgment means the court decided liability on two specific theories and stopped there. The order says nothing about a penalty amount, injunctive relief, restitution, or any other claim in the State's complaint. Anyone reading a headline that implies TikTok has already been ordered to pay a specific figure is reading past what this order actually says.

How This Affects You

This ruling does not change any law that applies to individual recording, surveillance, or privacy practices, and it creates no new right or remedy for an individual TikTok user in Texas or elsewhere. It is a finding in a government enforcement case, and any penalty, injunction, or other relief will come from later proceedings in the same case, not automatically from this order.

If you are a parent evaluating a platform's safety features for a minor, this case is a reminder that a feature's marketing description and its actual behavior are not the same thing, and that state attorneys general are actively scrutinizing that gap, including through Texas's own app store age verification law. If you are evaluating a legal claim related to a platform's data or content practices, including anything connected to social media harm, the facts of your situation and the law of your state will control, not this Travis County order.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws and the status of pending litigation can change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Consult a licensed attorney for advice about your situation.

Last updated: 2026-09-20. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-09-20.