The state of Utah released a new unredacted filing that suggests TikTok executives may have known the company was profiting off children being sexually exploited on the platform.
This new filing comes after Utah’s long legal battle against the social media platform. In late 2022, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox issued an executive order banning TikTok from all state-owned devices.
Later, Utah issued a lawsuit against a feature on the app called TikTok Live. The state alleges this feature takes 50% commission on every transaction where adults pay young users to dance, pose provocatively, or strip on camera, per the Deseret News.
This unredacted filing claims “TikTok knew that hundreds of thousands of minors were accessing their LIVE product and its age restrictions were ineffective.” Further, it claims “the company’s investigation recognized that children were being sexually exploited, and TikTok decided not to stop anything because of the financial profits it was raking in.”
When asked for a comment about the lawsuit in June, a TikTok spokesperson described the app’s “industry-leading policies and measures to help project the safety and well-being of teens,” asserting that “creators must be at least 18 years old before they can go LIVE, and their account must meet a follower requirement.”
The spokesperson added, “We immediately revoke access to features if we find accounts that do not meet our age requirements.”
The now unredacted complaint was initially filed in June 2024 and alleges, “TikTok coupled its livestream feature with monetization to create an environment built on exchanging TikTok’s virtual currency for sexual and illegal acts.”
However, the lawsuit against TikTok does not end at accusing the company of child sexual exploitation, but it also references “Project Jupiter,” a blockchain encryption feature that enables use of virtual currency, which “has enabled criminals to launder money, sell drugs, and fund terrorist groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.”
Outgoing Attorney General Sean Reyes commented on the new findings: “For my 11 years in office, Utah has led nationally to protect our children from violence and victimization in all forms but particularly from online predators. Sadly, social media is too often the tool for exploiting America’s young people.”
“Online exploitation of minors has exploded, leading to depression, isolation, and other tragedies such as suicide, addiction, and trafficking. It would be outrageous enough to endanger our kids the way TikTok has —even if it was unintended. But the fact that it serves up minors on ‘TikTok Live,’ knowing the danger, understanding the damage, and still monetizing the exploitation of our kids is unconscionable. And that doesn’t even address the money laundering aspects of our case,” Reyes said.
If a TikTok Live receives virtual currency gifts, it is boosted and favored, according to the complaint. The filing alleged “those feeds with a high currency exchange involved money laundering, sexual content, or both,” which results in the dangerous content being prioritized and easily found with no warning to new young users.
“Since the State’s first complaint against TikTok, we have had to fight tooth and nail to get this information from them,” Utah Department of Commerce Executive Director Margaret Woolley Busse said. “Now that the court has allowed us to make more of the Division’s complaint public, it shows just how TikTok has been lacking in any moral guardrails and how they have knowingly put our kids at risk.”
On Friday, a TikTok spokesperson acknowledged the unredacted filing, claiming, “This lawsuit ignores the number of proactive measures that TikTok has voluntarily implemented to support community safety and well-being.”
The spokesperson added, “The complaint cherry-picks misleading quotes and outdated documents and presents them out of context, which distorts our commitment to the safety of our community.”
In April 2024, Congress passed a law that President Joe Biden signed giving TikTok’s mother company, China-based ByteDance, until Jan. 19 to either be bought by a U.S.-approved buyer or be shut down.
On Jan. 10, the Supreme Court will hear attorneys’ arguments and decide whether to put the ban on hold.