This is a pro se/IFP case, so odds were high it was going to fail no matter what. Brooks says two of his TikTok accounts were terminated and another demonetized. He claims the account restrictions violated the First Amendment because TikTok became a state actor in response to the federal government’s relentless coercions of TikTok. Like so many other account termination and content removal cases, the court dismisses the claim.

The court says TikTok is not a state actor:

Plaintiff has not shown that any specific actions TikTok took on its platforms were traceable to any actionable federal rule to censor certain viewpoints….

Plaintiff offers no plausible factual allegations that the federal government coerced TikTok to regulate specific speech or viewpoints. As previously explained, Plaintiff’s assertions regarding government oversight generally are insufficient to support the inference that the government pressured TikTok into taking any specific action with respect to speech critical to the government. All Plaintiff has alleged is that TikTok was aware of a generalized federal concern with “improper manipulation” by foreign influence and that TikTok took steps to address that concern….

He alleges TikTok agreed to government oversight over its algorithm and moderation systems and a White House Fact Sheet announcing TikTok would operate under “strict rules” ensuring its content was “free from improper manipulation.” But nothing in these allegations support a reasonable inference that an agreement was made to regulate certain viewpoints, despite Plaintiff’s speculation to the contrary

This outcome is hardly surprising, but notice its fragility. We don’t know all of the details of the TikTok divestment that Trump claims to have brokered. However, the federal government’s extensive involvement in many aspects of TikTok 2.0 could very well flip the court’s reasoning in this case. For example, if the buyer group intentionally turns TikTok’s algorithm into Trump evangelism (which appears to be one of the driving motivations of the group purportedly buying TikTok), TikTok will more closely resemble a government mouthpiece than a private publisher making independent editorial decisions.

There is a deep irony that Brooks claims TikTok became a US government actor because Congress banned TikTok for purportedly being a Chinese government actor. It’s a reminder that Congress didn’t oppose government control of TikTok; Congress just wanted to be the government that controlled it. Due to its gamesmanship, Congress apparently handed control of TikTok to an authoritarian who every day disregards Congress’ powers. Well done, Congress.

Case Citation: Brooks v. TikTok Inc., 2026 WL 127940 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026). CourtListener page.

Selected Posts About State Action Claims

• Terminated User Loses Lawsuit Against Facebook–Hunt v. Meta
• Section 230 (Still) Applies to Contract Breach Claim–NJCCC v. McAleer
• More Account Termination Cases Fail in Court
• WeChat Defeats Account Termination Lawsuit–Sun v. WeChat
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Breaking Internet Law Faster Than I Can Blog It
• A Peek Into the Long Tail of Facebook’s Litigation Docket
• Jawboning Defendants Are 6-for-6 in the Ninth Circuit–Hart v. Facebook
• YouTube Still Isn’t a State Actor–Albertson v. Google
• Twitter Account Suspension Lawsuits Keep Failing–Hall v. Twitter
• Twitter Defeats Account Suspension Case–Craft v. Musk
• Government Submissions to a Trusted Flagger Program Aren’t Unconstitutional Jawboning–O’Handley v. Weber
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit Over Account Suspension for a Voting Misinformation “Joke”–Hall v. Meta
• Prager’s Lawsuit Over Biased Content Moderation Decisively Fails Again (This Time, in State Court)–Prager v. YouTube
• The 5th Circuit Puts the 1st Amendment in a Blender & Whips Up a Terrible #MAGA Kool-Aid–NetChoice v. Paxton
• Facebook Defeats Jawboning Lawsuit Over COVID Misinformation Removal–Rogalinski v. Meta
• Another Account Suspension Case Yeeted–Rangel v. Dorsey
• Another Failed Lawsuit Over Trump’s Deplatforming–Rutenberg v. Twitter
• COVID Skeptic Loses Lawsuit Over Account Terminations–Hart v. Facebook
• Twitter Defeats Trump’s Deplatforming Lawsuit–Trump v. Twitter
• Account Suspension Lawsuit Against Twitter Survives Motion to Dismiss–Berenson v. Twitter
• Another Failed Lawsuit Over Facebook’s Content Removals–Brock v. Zuckerberg
• Section 230 Survives Yet Another Constitutional Challenge–Huber v. Biden
• Another Court Says Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–McWaters v. Houston
• Another Anti-Vaxxer Jawboning Lawsuit Fails–ICAN v. YouTube
• The First Amendment Protects Twitter’s Fact-Checking and Account Suspension Decisions–O’Handley v. Padilla
• One More Time: Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Atkinson v. Facebook
• Two More Courts Tell Litigants That Social Media Services Aren’t State Actors
• Government Jawboning Doesn’t Turn Internet Services into State Actors–Doe v. Google
• Anti-Zionist Loses Lawsuit Over Social Media Account Suspensions–Martillo v. Facebook
• Court Nopes Another Lawsuit Over Facebook Suspensions–Orders v. Facebook
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By Publishers of Vaccine (Mis?)information–Children’s Health Defense v. Facebook
• Court Rejects Lawsuit Alleging YouTube Engaged in Racially Biased Content Moderation–Newman v. Google
• Yet Another Court Says Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Brock v. Zuckerberg
• YouTube (Again) Defeats Lawsuit Over Content Removal–Lewis v. Google
• When It Came to @RealDonaldTrump, Twitter Couldn’t Please Everyone–Rutenberg v. Twitter
• Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails–Daniels v Alphabet
• Newspaper Isn’t State Actor–Plotkin v. Astorian
• An Account Suspension Case Fails Again–Perez v. LinkedIn
• Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?
• Google and Twitter Defeat Lawsuit Over Account Suspensions/Terminations–DeLima v. Google
• More Plaintiffs (and Lawyers) Need To Be Reminded That YouTube Isn’t a State Actor–Divino v. Google
• Facebook Isn’t a Constructive Public Trust–Cameron Atkinson v. Facebook
• Google and YouTube Aren’t “Censoring” Breitbart Comments–Belknap v. Alphabet
• LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn
• Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case–Zimmerman v. Facebook
• Section 230 Ends Demonetized YouTuber’s Lawsuit–Lewis v. Google
• Court Rejects Another Lawsuit Alleging that Internet Companies Suppress Conservative Views–Freedom Watch v. Google
• Another Suspended Twitter User Loses in Court–Wilson v. Twitter
• First Voters Reject Tulsi Gabbard, Then a Judge Does–Gabbard v. Google
• YouTube Isn’t a State Actor (DUH)–PragerU v. Google
• Facebook Still Isn’t Obligated to Publish Russian Troll Content–FAN v. Facebook
• Vimeo Defeats Lawsuit for Terminating Account That Posted Conversion Therapy Videos–Domen v. Vimeo
• Russia Fucked With American Democracy, But It Can’t Fuck With Section 230–Federal Agency of News v. Facebook
• Private Publishers Aren’t State Actors–Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck
• Your Periodic Reminder That Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Williby v. Zuckerberg
• Section 230 Protects Facebook’s Account and Content Restriction Decisions–Ebeid v. Facebook
• Court Tosses Antitrust Claims That Internet Giants Are Biased Against Conservatives–Freedom Watch v. Google
• Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter
• YouTube Isn’t a Company Town (Duh)–Prager University v. Google
• Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By User Suspended Over ‘Bowling Green Massacre’–Shulman v. Facebook
• Yelp, Twitter and Facebook Aren’t State Actors–Quigley v. Yelp
• Facebook Not Liable for Account Termination–Young v. Facebook
• Online Game Network Isn’t Company Town–Estavillo v. Sony
• Third Circuit Says Google Isn’t State Actor–Jayne v. Google Founders
• Ask.com Not Liable for Search Results or Indexing Decisions–Murawski v. Pataki
• Search Engines Defeat “Must-Carry” Lawsuit–Langdon v. Google
• KinderStart Lawsuit Dismissed (With Leave to Amend)
• ICANN Not a State Actor