Vermont attorney general describes Meta, TikTok suits and explains how consumer lawsuits and AG enforcement differ

Attorney General Charity Clark told the Senate Institutions committee that her office has sued Meta and TikTok over harms to teens and described how the Consumer Protection Act and a private right of action differ from the Attorney General’s enforcement powers.

Clark said her office sued Meta in October 2023 and sued TikTok in October 2024 and that the TikTok complaint was filed with redactions still under dispute. “We investigated Meta as well as TikTok regarding their harms against teens especially, and the algorithm,” Attorney General Charity Clark said. She told senators the office has data on Vermont teens that is “disturbing” and that she hopes parts of the TikTok complaint now under redaction will eventually be unredacted so the committee can see the evidence.

The Attorney General stressed how the Consumer Protection Act gives both the state and private consumers remedies but in different ways. Under the Consumer Protection Act an individual “may sue for appropriate equitable relief” for actual damages they sustained, Clark said, giving the example of a consumer who could sue a seller to recover a $100 purchase that never worked. By contrast, Clark said, the Attorney General can pursue statutory penalties on behalf of the state — she described the office’s authority to seek up to $10,000 per violation in some cases and noted the large sums that can follow large-scale actions, pointing to historic tobacco-related recoveries that continue to provide Vermont with funds.

Clark also explained practical limits on the Attorney General’s role. “The Attorney General does not represent individuals. I represent the state,” she told the committee, noting that private suits shift resource burdens away from taxpayers and toward civil enforcement by private parties. She said the office will continue to pursue systemic remedies where the state’s interests are implicated and observed that private plaintiffs are often the appropriate vehicle for redressing individual harm.

Clark cited prior consumer-protection litigation as background for the office’s actions and named tobacco and fossil-fuel cases as examples where omission or concealment of information formed the basis for enforcement. She said the Consumer Protection Act is broad and has been used historically to address deceptive practices in commerce, and that omission—companies failing to disclose information consumers relied on—has been treated as a deceptive practice in past cases.

On process and evidence, Clark told senators that some investigative materials have been filed under seal and that her office is litigating whether certain redactions may remain. She urged the committee to consider evidence of harms that the office has developed while lawmakers weigh the Age Appropriate Design Code.

Ending — what the committee heard next

Clark concluded her remarks by answering committee questions about the private right of action, the Attorney General’s enforcement role, and the nature of evidence gathered in the office’s investigations. She indicated her office is available to provide technical or legal feedback on the bill as it proceeds.