UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 22-3061 ______________

TAWAINNA ANDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF N.A., A DECEASED MINOR, Appellant

v.

TIKTOK, INC.; BYTEDANCE, INC. ______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-22-cv-01849) U.S. District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond ______________

Argued January 17, 2024 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 27, 2024) Jeffrey P. Goodman [ARGUED] Robert J. Mongeluzzi Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellant Tawainna Anderson Geoffrey M. Drake King & Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Albert Giang King & Spalding 633 W 5th Street Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 David Mattern King & Spalding 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Joseph O’Neil Katherine A. Wang Campbell Conroy & O’Neil 1205 Westlakes Drive Suite 330 Berwyn, PA 19312

2 Andrew J. Pincus [ARGUED] Nicole A. Saharsky Mayer Brown 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Mark J. Winebrenner Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath 90 S. Seventh Street 2200 Wells Fargo Center Minneapolis, MN 55402

Counsel for Appellees TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Inc.

______________

OPINION OF THE COURT ______________ SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

TikTok, Inc., via its algorithm, recommended and promoted videos posted by third parties to ten-year-old Nylah Anderson on her uniquely curated “For You Page.” One video depicted the “Blackout Challenge,” which encourages viewers to record themselves engaging in acts of self-asphyxiation. After watching the video, Nylah attempted the conduct depicted in the challenge and unintentionally hanged herself. Nylah’s mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and its corporate relative ByteDance, Inc., (collectively, “TikTok”) for violations of state law. The District Court dismissed her

3 complaint, holding that the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunizes TikTok. For the following reasons, we will reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

I

A1

TikTok is a video-sharing social media platform that allows users to create, post, and view content. TikTok users can search the platform for content or, without searching, view content that TikTok’s algorithm recommends by posting the content to a user’s “For You Page” (“FYP”).2 TikTok’s algorithm is not based solely on a user’s online inputs. Rather, the algorithm curates and recommends a tailored compilation of videos for a user’s FYP based on a variety of factors, including the user’s age and other demographics, online interactions, and other metadata.

1 We draw the facts from the complaint, accept them as true, Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010), and “view[] them in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff,” In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “[W]e disregard legal conclusions and ‘recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.’” Santiago, 629 F.3d at 128 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). 2 An algorithm is a set of digital instructions that perform a task. See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

4 Some videos tha