{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:e8443fd2c5aedf6e3f2abfe17358a1f5dd3abac82c17c73d79f3305e96a75552","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"In the Iowa Supreme Court","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"No. 24–1566","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Submitted October 24, 2025—Filed January 23, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Amended April 2, 2026","paragraphs":["para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11"]},{"title":"Entities associated with the TikTok social media platform seek","paragraphs":["para_13","para_14"]},{"title":"McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices","paragraphs":["para_16"]},{"title":"David Yoshimura (argued), Nick Klinefeldt, and Emily R. O’Brien of Faegre","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Des Moines, and Emily Ullman (argued), Alexander","paragraphs":["para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_26"]},{"title":"California, and Matthew D. Callanan of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for","paragraphs":["para_28"]},{"title":"Leslie C. Behaunek of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for amicus","paragraphs":["para_30"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_32"]},{"title":"The TikTok social media application (or “app”) has become a staple of life","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"Iowa sued TikTok, Inc. and its related entities, alleging they lied about the app’s","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38","para_39"]},{"title":"The district court denied the motion. We granted the defendants’ application for","paragraphs":["para_41","para_42"]},{"title":"The defendants are five related corporate entities responsible for the","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51"]},{"title":"To make the app available to consumers, TikTok lists the app on third-","paragraphs":["para_53"]},{"title":"Microsoft Store. To offer an app on the Apple App Store, developers must","paragraphs":["para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"Use or References,” “Sexual Content and Nudity,” “Mature/Suggestive Themes,”","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_59","para_60","para_61"]},{"title":"Based on TikTok’s representations, Apple assigned the TikTok app a “12+” age","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65"]},{"title":"TikTok markets the app in Iowa. Downloads have been robust—devices","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"Users allow TikTok to collect data about their use of the platform, including","paragraphs":["para_72","para_73"]},{"title":"The State of Iowa filed a petition against the defendants alleging violations","paragraphs":["para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82"]},{"title":"State further alleges that TikTok’s representations about its “Community","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Guidelines,” which purportedly moderate content to age-restrict mature videos","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_86"]},{"title":"State also sought a temporary injunction to enjoin TikTok from making certain","paragraphs":["para_88"]},{"title":"The TikTok entities moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal","paragraphs":["para_90"]},{"title":"Federal Communications Decency Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. The district court","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93"]},{"title":"230 did not apply to the specific claims alleged. The district court also denied","paragraphs":["para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"We review a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"576, 582 (Iowa 2015). In doing so, we accept the facts alleged in the petition and","paragraphs":["para_102","para_103","para_104"]},{"title":"The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly exercised","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"1.306. As a result, our personal jurisdiction analysis in this case collapses into","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To comply with due process, a defendant must have sufficient minimum","paragraphs":["para_114","para_115","para_116"]},{"title":"457, 463 (1940)). The United States Supreme Court often describes two types of","paragraphs":["para_118"]},{"title":"Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021). A state court may exercise general","paragraphs":["para_120","para_121"]},{"title":"U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). For a corporate defendant, general jurisdiction usually","paragraphs":["para_123","para_124"]},{"title":"(Iowa 2025); Anthony J. Gaughan, The Unsettled State of Corporate General","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Personal Jurisdiction, 103 Neb. L. Rev. 131, 133 (2024). The State of Iowa in this","paragraphs":["para_127","para_128"]},{"title":"Specific jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"359. It has two primary requirements: (1) a defendant must have “purposefully","paragraphs":["para_131","para_132"]},{"title":"(first quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958); and then quoting","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)); see also Sioux","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Pharm, Inc., 859 N.W.2d at 196. The critical consideration is whether the","paragraphs":["para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Jurisdiction thus","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_140"]},{"title":"Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). Rather, the defendant must have deliberately","paragraphs":["para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145"]},{"title":"A. Minimum Contacts. The TikTok entities argue that they have not","paragraphs":["para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153"]},{"title":"But the unilateral-activity argument fails where a defendant actively","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., a plaintiff filed a libel suit in New Hampshire","paragraphs":["para_157","para_158"]},{"title":"Supreme Court held that the publisher could be sued in New Hampshire because","paragraphs":["para_160"]},{"title":"Id. at 781. Although the magazine was “aimed at a nationwide audience,” the","paragraphs":["para_162"]},{"title":"New Hampshire based on the magazine’s considerable distribution and sales","paragraphs":["para_164"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The TikTok entities rely on Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp., 760","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2014), to support their position. In Fastpath, an Iowa software","paragraphs":["para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"When the Iowa corporation later sued in Iowa for breach of the agreement, the","paragraphs":["para_171"]},{"title":"States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s","paragraphs":["para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"But Fastpath’s holding rested on the fact that the agreement was silent as","paragraphs":["para_180"]},{"title":"The agreement was entered into in anticipation of potential business","paragraphs":["para_182"]},{"title":"TikTok, by contrast, has intentionally cultivated an immensely profitable","paragraphs":["para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189"]},{"title":"Iowa user accesses the content on the app or TikTok collects the user’s data, the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_192","para_193"]},{"title":"In our view, Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Summit Nutritionals International, Inc. is a","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204"]},{"title":"The State’s petition alleges an even stronger connection here. Although the","paragraphs":["para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211"]},{"title":"The defendants have entered ongoing contractual relationships with","paragraphs":["para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"B. Arising Out of or Relating to. We turn to whether the State’s claims","paragraphs":["para_225"]},{"title":"Bristol–Myers, 582 U.S. at 262). Adequate protection of foreign defendants means","paragraphs":["para_227","para_228","para_229"]},{"title":"J., concurring in the judgment)). Although what it means to “arise out of or relate","paragraphs":["para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"The defendants suggest that Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court","paragraphs":["para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The TikTok entities argue that the required connection with its Iowa","paragraphs":["para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254"]},{"title":"But in Bristol–Myers Squibb, the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims were more","paragraphs":["para_256","para_257","para_258"]},{"title":"Judicial District Court. 592 U.S. 351. In Ford, the Court considered whether a","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267"]},{"title":"We have little trouble concluding that the claims here relate to the","paragraphs":["para_269","para_270"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_272","para_273"]},{"title":"The petition alleges that the defendants secured and maintained this market","paragraphs":["para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279"]},{"title":"We reject TikTok’s contention that a contract-based contact generally only","paragraphs":["para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285"]},{"title":"(en banc) (upholding personal jurisdiction because TikTok’s systematic service","paragraphs":["para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292"]},{"title":"Courts in other states have similarly rejected jurisdiction-based","paragraphs":["para_294"]},{"title":"Inc., No. 12CV–23–65, 2024 WL 5690575, at *2–3 (Ark. Cir. Ct., May 15, 2024)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(finding specific personal jurisdiction exists where TikTok utilized service","paragraphs":["para_297"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_299","para_300"]},{"title":"(Ark. 2025); State v. TikTok Inc., 245 N.E.3d 681, 688–92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(holding that TikTok’s continuous data transmission and exchange of platform","paragraphs":["para_303","para_304","para_305"]},{"title":"So.3d 535 (La. 2025) (denying TikTok’s application for a supervisory writ and","paragraphs":["para_307","para_308"]},{"title":"(Miss. Ch. Ct. Aug. 27, 2025) (ruling that specific personal jurisdiction was","paragraphs":["para_310","para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"24CV032063–910, 2025 WL 2399525, at *3–5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2025)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(denying a motion to dismiss because TikTok’s terms of service agreements, data","paragraphs":["para_315","para_316","para_317"]},{"title":"346 A.3d 489 (Vt. 2025) (affirming the exercise of personal jurisdiction where","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Meta’s service contracts, data tracking, and Vermont-specific user studies were","paragraphs":["para_320","para_321"]},{"title":"C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice. Having concluded that the","paragraphs":["para_323","para_324"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"As to the litigation burden, the defendants argue that forcing them to","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334"]},{"title":"Iowa teens in exchange for their personal information. Conversely, Iowa has a","paragraphs":["para_336","para_337","para_338"]},{"title":"We find nothing unreasonable in the notion that the defendants must defend in","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Iowa against claims brought by the State on behalf of its own residents who were","paragraphs":["para_341","para_342"]},{"title":"Intentionally conducting business within a state comes with both the","paragraphs":["para_344","para_345","para_346","para_347","para_348","para_349"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"In the Iowa Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"No. 24–1566","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"Submitted October 24, 2025—Filed January 23, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Amended April 2, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"State of Iowa ex rel. Attorney General Brenna Bird,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"vs.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"TikTok, Inc., TikTok LTD., TikTok PTE. LTD., ByteDance LTD.,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"and ByteDance, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, judge.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Entities associated with the TikTok social media platform seek","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss for","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"lack of specific personal jurisdiction. Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"joined.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"David Yoshimura (argued), Nick Klinefeldt, and Emily R. O’Brien of Faegre","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Des Moines, and Emily Ullman (argued), Alexander","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"A. Berengaut, Neema Sahni, and J. Hardy Ehlers of Covington & Burling LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Washington, D.C., for appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Eric H. Wessan (argued), Solicitor General,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"and William R. Pearson, Assistant Attorney General, and David H. Thompson,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Brian W. Barnes, and John D. Ohlendorf of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, Washington,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"D.C., for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Anne M. Voigts of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Palo Alto,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"California, and Matthew D. Callanan of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, for","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"amici curiae Professors Alan Trammell and Derek Bambauer.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Leslie C. Behaunek of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for amicus","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"curiae NetChoice.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"McDermott, Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"The TikTok social media application (or “app”) has become a staple of life","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"for a vast swath of the American population, and particularly for teenagers. To","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"get younger users, the platform needs to appear safe to parents. The State of","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Iowa sued TikTok, Inc. and its related entities, alleging they lied about the app’s","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"safety by maintaining a “12+” age rating on app stores despite the presence of","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"mature and age-inappropriate content. The TikTok entities moved to dismiss the","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"case, arguing that the Iowa district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"The district court denied the motion. We granted the defendants’ application for","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"interlocutory review.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"The defendants are five related corporate entities responsible for the","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"TikTok platform: TikTok, Inc., TikTok, LTD., TikTok, PTE. LTD., ByteDance LTD.,","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"and ByteDance, Inc. (Because none of the defendants argue for distinct","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"treatment, we address them collectively.) Users access the TikTok platform","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"through an app, typically downloaded on a phone or tablet. The TikTok app offers","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"short videos created and uploaded by users, often set to popular music, that are","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"then made available to other users to view and react to. The TikTok app was the","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"most downloaded app in the world in 2022; the platform has over a billion global","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"users.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"To make the app available to consumers, TikTok lists the app on third-","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"party digital storefronts, including the Apple App Store, Google Play Store, and","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Microsoft Store. To offer an app on the Apple App Store, developers must","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"complete an age-rating questionnaire. Apple’s questionnaire asks developers to","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"describe the prevalence of four content categories: “Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Use or References,” “Sexual Content and Nudity,” “Mature/Suggestive Themes,”","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"and “Profanity or Crude Humor.” For each category, the developer is asked to","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"describe the prevalence of that content as “None,” “Infrequent/Mild,” or","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"“Frequent/Intense.” TikTok answered “Infrequent/Mild” for every category.","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"Based on TikTok’s representations, Apple assigned the TikTok app a “12+” age","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"rating. The next higher (and highest) rating is “17+”. Apple offers the option to","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"choose an age rating higher than the one the questionnaire generates, but TikTok","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"has at all times elected to keep the “12+” rating.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"TikTok markets the app in Iowa. Downloads have been robust—devices","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"with an Iowa IP address have activated the TikTok app hundreds of thousands","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"of times. When Iowa users download the app, they enter into a “Terms of Service”","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"agreement with TikTok. The terms of service agreement is governed by California","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"law. Under the agreement, TikTok gives users access to the TikTok platform.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Users allow TikTok to collect data about their use of the platform, including","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"location data. TikTok then uses location-tracking technology to serve Iowa-","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"specific advertisements and curate content for Iowa users.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"The State of Iowa filed a petition against the defendants alleging violations","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"of the Iowa Consumer Frauds Act. See Iowa Code § 714.16 (2024). The lawsuit","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"claims that the defendants engage in deceptive and unfair practices regarding","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"the app’s age rating and the age-appropriateness of its content. Citing numerous","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"examples, the State alleges that the app’s “12+” rating is misleading because the","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"platform frequently features intense profanity, sexual content, mature themes,","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"and references to alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Although TikTok offers a","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"“Restricted Mode” setting to further limit the appearance of inappropriate","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"content, the State alleges that this setting does not work as TikTok claims. The","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"State further alleges that TikTok’s representations about its “Community","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Guidelines,” which purportedly moderate content to age-restrict mature videos","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"that appear on the platform, are similarly untrue. Along with its lawsuit, the","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"State also sought a temporary injunction to enjoin TikTok from making certain","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"representations about the app’s content and age ratings during the litigation.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"The TikTok entities moved to dismiss the petition for lack of personal","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and immunity under section 230 of the","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Federal Communications Decency Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 230. The district court","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that it had personal jurisdiction over","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"the TikTok entities, that the State had pleaded a valid claim, and that section","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"230 did not apply to the specific claims alleged. The district court also denied","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"the State’s motion for a temporary injunction, holding that the State failed to","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"demonstrate irreparable harm. The defendants sought an interlocutory appeal","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"on the jurisdiction ruling, which we granted.","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"We review a ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"for correction of errors at law. Book v. Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co., 860 N.W.2d","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"576, 582 (Iowa 2015). In doing so, we accept the facts alleged in the petition and","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"the contents of uncontroverted affidavits as true. Id. Once the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"establishes a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"defendant to rebut it. Shams v. Hassan, 829 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Iowa 2013).","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly exercised","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Iowa law authorizes the exercise of","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"personal jurisdiction to the widest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Iowa R. Civ. P.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"1.306. As a result, our personal jurisdiction analysis in this case collapses into","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"an inquiry about the scope of the Due Process Clause’s limits. Sioux Pharm, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"v. Summit Nutritionals Int’l, Inc., 859 N.W.2d 182, 188 (Iowa 2015).","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"To comply with due process, a defendant must have sufficient minimum","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"contacts with the forum state such that requiring the defendant to litigate there","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"“does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Myer, 311 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"457, 463 (1940)). The United States Supreme Court often describes two types of","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021). A state court may exercise general","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"jurisdiction over a defendant only when the defendant is “essentially at home” in","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"the forum. Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). For a corporate defendant, general jurisdiction usually","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"exists only in two places: the state of incorporation and the state of the principal","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"place of business. Kelchner v. CRST Expedited, Inc., 29 N.W.3d 315, 321–23","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"(Iowa 2025); Anthony J. Gaughan, The Unsettled State of Corporate General","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"Personal Jurisdiction, 103 Neb. L. Rev. 131, 133 (2024). The State of Iowa in this","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"case does not argue that the TikTok entities are subject to general jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"in Iowa.","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"Specific jurisdiction is a claim-specific inquiry. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"359. It has two primary requirements: (1) a defendant must have “purposefully","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state,”","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"and (2) the plaintiff’s claims “must arise out of or relate to” those activities. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"(first quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958); and then quoting","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)); see also Sioux","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"Pharm, Inc., 859 N.W.2d at 196. The critical consideration is whether the","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum are substantial enough that","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"it “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World–Wide","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Jurisdiction thus","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"cannot rest on “random, isolated, or fortuitous” contacts. Keeton v. Hustler Mag.,","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). Rather, the defendant must have deliberately","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"“reached out beyond” its home state by, for instance, “exploit[ing] a market” in","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"the forum or “entering a contractual relationship centered there.” Ford Motor Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"592 U.S. at 359 (alteration in original) (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"285 (2014)).","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"A. Minimum Contacts. The TikTok entities argue that they have not","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"purposefully availed themselves of the Iowa market. They argue that the terms","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"of service agreement is a standardized, nationwide contract not directed","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"specifically at Iowa. And they characterize any contact with Iowa as the result of","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"the “unilateral activity” of third parties—namely, Iowa users choosing to","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"download the app from third-party storefronts. The necessary contacts to","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"generate specific personal jurisdiction, they emphasize, must be “with the forum","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"State itself,” not merely with people who reside there. Walden, 571 U.S. at 285.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"But the unilateral-activity argument fails where a defendant actively","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"cultivates and monetizes a relationship with a state’s residents. For instance, in","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., a plaintiff filed a libel suit in New Hampshire","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"against an out-of-state magazine publisher. 465 U.S. at 772. The publisher’s","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"contacts with New Hampshire were limited to its magazine sales there. Id. The","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Supreme Court held that the publisher could be sued in New Hampshire because","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"it “continuously and deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market” for sales.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Id. at 781. Although the magazine was “aimed at a nationwide audience,” the","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"publisher could claim “no unfairness in calling it to answer for the contents” in","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"New Hampshire based on the magazine’s considerable distribution and sales","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"there. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"The TikTok entities rely on Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Technologies Corp., 760","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"F.3d 816 (8th Cir. 2014), to support their position. In Fastpath, an Iowa software","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"business and an out-of-state corporation entered into mutual confidentiality and","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"noncompete agreements to explore a potential business partnership. Id. at 819.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"When the Iowa corporation later sued in Iowa for breach of the agreement, the","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. The United","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"dismissal, concluding that the defendant had not purposefully directed its","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"activities at Iowa, noting among other points that its marketing efforts were not","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"actively targeted at Iowa customers. Id. at 824. TikTok seeks to analogize that","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"holding here, arguing that—much like the defendant in Fastpath—merely","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"entering into an agreement with an Iowa resident constitutes “incidental” rather","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"than “targeted” contact.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"But Fastpath’s holding rested on the fact that the agreement was silent as","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"to where the contemplated sharing of information was to take place. Id. at 822.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"The agreement was entered into in anticipation of potential business","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"opportunities, yet the parties ultimately never did any business together. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"TikTok, by contrast, has intentionally cultivated an immensely profitable","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"business in Iowa by entering into ongoing contractual relationships (via the","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"terms of service) with hundreds of thousands of Iowans who regularly use the","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"app. Further, the court in Fastpath found that the agreement did not require","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"performance in Iowa; to the extent the companies shared any information, that","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"sharing occurred outside Iowa. Id. But the terms of service here both require","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"performance and contemplate future consequences within Iowa. Every time an","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Iowa user accesses the content on the app or TikTok collects the user’s data, the","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"reciprocal contractual obligations are being performed where the user resides—","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"in Iowa.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"In our view, Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Summit Nutritionals International, Inc. is a","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"far closer analog. 859 N.W.2d 182. In that case, an Iowa manufacturer sued an","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"out-of-state corporate defendant for unfair competition. Id. at 186–87. The","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"defendant’s website claimed that it had a manufacturing facility in Iowa, when","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"in fact another entity (one of the defendant’s suppliers) owned and operated the","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"facility. Id. The defendant argued that the erroneous statement on its passive","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"website was insufficient to create specific jurisdiction in Iowa. Id. at 187. We","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"disagreed, concluding that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the Iowa","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"market by actively promoting its product to Iowa residents on the website and","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"selling its product here. Id. at 196. We thus held that the district court had","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant. Id. at 197.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"The State’s petition alleges an even stronger connection here. Although the","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"user initiates the download of the app, the defendants thereafter engage in active","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"and purposeful conduct with the app’s users in Iowa. The State alleges that the","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"defendants do not merely maintain a passive website accessible in Iowa but","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"rather “actively serve content to and collect data from” users’ devices here. And","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"crucially, TikTok uses this Iowa-specific data, including location information, to","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"target advertisements to Iowa users from which it generates revenue.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"The defendants have entered ongoing contractual relationships with","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"hundreds of thousands of Iowa residents. They involve not isolated contacts but","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"continuous transactions in which the defendants actively curate content for Iowa","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"users and, in exchange, extract valuable data. That TikTok is available","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"nationwide, and not just in Iowa, does not defeat jurisdiction in Iowa under the","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"analysis. See Keeton, 465 U.S. at 781 (where defendants “continuously and","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"deliberately exploit” a market, they must “reasonably anticipate being haled into","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"court” there). By monetizing the Iowa market through targeted advertising and","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"data collection under the terms of service, the defendants have purposefully","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in the state. The State has","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"thus established the defendants’ sufficient minimum contacts with Iowa.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"B. Arising Out of or Relating to. We turn to whether the State’s claims","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"“arise out of or relate to” those contacts. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 359 (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"Bristol–Myers, 582 U.S. at 262). Adequate protection of foreign defendants means","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"offering those defendants a “fair warning” that their activities may subject them","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"462, 472 (1985) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 218 (1977) (Stevens,","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"J., concurring in the judgment)). Although what it means to “arise out of or relate","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"to” does not require a strict causal relationship between the defendant’s contacts","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"and the plaintiff’s claims, the phrase must incorporate real limits to adequately","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"protect foreign defendants. Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at 362.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"The defendants suggest that Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"provides a useful analog. 582 U.S. 255. In that case, a group of plaintiffs sued","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"an out-of-state pharmaceutical company in California alleging that the","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"company’s drug had damaged their health. Id. at 259. Although the company","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"sold the drug and engaged in other business in California, it did not develop,","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"manufacture, or label the drug in California. Id. Perhaps more importantly, the","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"plaintiff group included many nonresidents of California who did not obtain the","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"drug from a California source. Id. The Supreme Court held that California had","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"no jurisdiction to hear the nonresidents’ claims because those claims lacked “a","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.” Id. at 265.","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"The TikTok entities argue that the required connection with its Iowa","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"contacts is similarly missing here because the State alleges consumer fraud","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"through the misleading age ratings and not a breach of the terms of service. More","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"pointedly, the defendants assert that the allegedly deceptive actions—the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"questionnaire responses, decisions about age ratings, statements in the","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"restricted-mode offering and app guidelines—all concern conduct that took place","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"outside Iowa. They emphasize that the harm alleged by the State is not born of","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"a terms of service violation, and that finding personal jurisdiction based on","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"merely entering into the terms of service would create an impermissible form of","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"general jurisdiction.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"But in Bristol–Myers Squibb, the nonresident plaintiffs’ claims were more","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"clearly untethered to the forum because those plaintiffs did not purchase, use,","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"or suffer injuries from the drug in California. Id. at 264. A more fitting analysis","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Judicial District Court. 592 U.S. 351. In Ford, the Court considered whether a","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"state had jurisdiction over a vehicle manufacturer in a product liability suit","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"where its vehicles were not first sold, designed, or manufactured in the state. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"at 356–57. In its analysis, the Court made clear that the “arise out of and relate","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"to” requirement does not demand a strict causal link. Id. at 362. Concluding that","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"jurisdiction is proper where a defendant “serves a market” in a state and the","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"injury arises from that service, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims arose","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"out of or related to other services Ford provided surrounding the use and sale of","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"its vehicles in the state. Id. at 363.","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"We have little trouble concluding that the claims here relate to the","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"defendants’ contacts with Iowa. The alleged deceptive age ratings were the very","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"tool used to induce Iowa parents and children to enter into the terms of service","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"and download the app. The contacts with the app’s users in Iowa, the State","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"alleges, exploited the market for Iowa users’ data to generate advertising revenue.","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"The petition alleges that the defendants secured and maintained this market","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"through the deceptive conduct at issue—specifically, by misrepresenting the","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"safety of the app to secure a “12+” rating. Without the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"misrepresentations, the State asserts that many Iowa parents would not have","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"permitted their children to download the app, enter into the terms of service","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"agreement, or provide the data that the defendants monetize.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"We reject TikTok’s contention that a contract-based contact generally only","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"supports a breach of contract claim. As the Nevada Supreme Court recently","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"recognized in similar litigation, when a digital platform’s business model relies","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"on maximizing user engagement within a state, consumer protection claims","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"regarding the safety of that platform “relate to” the company’s presence in that","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"forum. TikTok, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 578 P.3d 640, 649 (Nev. 2025)","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"(en banc) (upholding personal jurisdiction because TikTok’s systematic service","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"to and profit from Nevadans through data collection, data sales, and targeted","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"advertising were sufficiently linked to deceptive trade practice claims). The terms","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"of service with Iowa users enable the data extraction and advertising that form","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"the basis of the defendants’ business in Iowa. The defendants’ use of deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"practices to induce Iowans into these very relationships relates to the defendants’","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"contacts.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Courts in other states have similarly rejected jurisdiction-based","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"arguments by TikTok entities along these same lines. See, e.g., State v. TikTok","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"Inc., No. 12CV–23–65, 2024 WL 5690575, at *2–3 (Ark. Cir. Ct., May 15, 2024)","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"(finding specific personal jurisdiction exists where TikTok utilized service","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"contracts with residents to generate revenue via geo-targeted advertisements, as","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"those contacts sufficiently relate to the state’s claims of deceptive trade practices","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"regarding app store age ratings), cert. denied, No. CV–24–522, 2025 WL 1522873","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"(Ark. 2025); State v. TikTok Inc., 245 N.E.3d 681, 688–92 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"(holding that TikTok’s continuous data transmission and exchange of platform","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"content for user personal data constituted sufficient contacts with the state to","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"establish specific personal jurisdiction over claims alleging deceptive acts aimed","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"at inducing Indiana residents to download the app); State v. TikTok, Inc., No. 421","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"So.3d 535 (La. 2025) (denying TikTok’s application for a supervisory writ and","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"upholding the lower courts’ denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"jurisdiction); Lynn Fitch ex rel. State v. TikTok, Inc., No. G2024–1235, at 3–7","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"(Miss. Ch. Ct. Aug. 27, 2025) (ruling that specific personal jurisdiction was","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"proper based on TikTok’s state-specific marketing, geo-targeted advertising, local","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"charitable donations, and lobbying efforts, all of which related to the state’s","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"consumer protection claims); State ex rel. Jackson v. TikTok Inc., No.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"24CV032063–910, 2025 WL 2399525, at *3–5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2025)","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"(denying a motion to dismiss because TikTok’s terms of service agreements, data","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"collection practices, targeted advertising, and in-state marketing were","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"sufficiently related to the state’s claims regarding the platform’s alleged harmful","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"and addictive nature toward minors). See generally State v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"346 A.3d 489 (Vt. 2025) (affirming the exercise of personal jurisdiction where","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"Meta’s service contracts, data tracking, and Vermont-specific user studies were","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"inherent to the business model giving rise to the state’s claims of unfair practices","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"and misrepresentations).","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice. Having concluded that the","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"defendants have sufficient contacts with Iowa and that the State’s claims related","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"to those contacts, we examine in broad form whether exercising jurisdiction is","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"“reasonable” and “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"justice.” Harding v. Sasso, 2 N.W.3d 260, 264 (Iowa 2023) (quoting Ford Motor","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"Co., 592 U.S. at 351). In this analysis, we consider the burden on the defendant,","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"the forum state’s interest, and the plaintiff’s interest in effective relief. Id. at 265.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"As to the litigation burden, the defendants argue that forcing them to","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"potentially litigate in fifty states would impose a considerable burden. But we","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"find that concern outweighed by the fact that they are multinational corporations","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"who have reached into Iowa and allegedly made misrepresentations about an","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"app that was made available, downloaded, and used in Iowa by thousands of","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"Iowa teens in exchange for their personal information. Conversely, Iowa has a","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"“manifest interest” in providing a forum for its residents to seek redress for","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"consumer fraud and in protecting its youth from harmful content. Burger King","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"Corp., 471 U.S. at 473 (quoting McGee v. Int’l Life Ins., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957)).","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"We find nothing unreasonable in the notion that the defendants must defend in","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Iowa against claims brought by the State on behalf of its own residents who were","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"allegedly targeted and harmed within the state.","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"Intentionally conducting business within a state comes with both the","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"benefit of the protection of the state’s laws and the burden of being haled into","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"court to answer for misconduct related to its operations there. It is no defense to","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"jurisdiction that the business operates in many other states too. The district","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"we thus affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_349"}],"word_count":3773,"cites":["326 U.S. 310","311 U.S.\n457","592 U.S. 351","564\nU.S. 915","357 U.S. 235","582 U.S. 255","444 U.S. 286","465 U.S. 770","571 U.S. 277","471 U.S.\n462","433 U.S. 186","355 U.S. 220","760\nF.3d 816"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"8a8369c6055e877e95f1b59138d46615990318c423904cb9d2a3ead4dce626d3","source_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/24289/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T19:44:23.654+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","verification":{"stored_sha256":"8a8369c6055e877e95f1b59138d46615990318c423904cb9d2a3ead4dce626d3","recomputed_sha256":"8a8369c6055e877e95f1b59138d46615990318c423904cb9d2a3ead4dce626d3","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-18T00:01:15.365Z"}},"hash":"sha256:e8443fd2c5aedf6e3f2abfe17358a1f5dd3abac82c17c73d79f3305e96a75552","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:e8443fd2c5aedf6e3f2abfe17358a1f5dd3abac82c17c73d79f3305e96a75552","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T01:01:15.534Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/iowa-24-1566-2026-01-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b07abe1cedcd2cfc2038a427bc0867cc","response_hash":"sha256:e8443fd2c5aedf6e3f2abfe17358a1f5dd3abac82c17c73d79f3305e96a75552"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T10:12:04.066Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aiowa-24-1566-2026-01-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":18454}}