The ovens at Chloe’s Giant Cookies are already churning on a dreary Memphis morning. Oversized chocolate chip dough sheets slide into industrial racks and gradually spread out into dinner plate-sized discs. The scent of warming sugar and butter fills the air. At first look, it seems like a typical American small business narrative. However, in a manner that few bakeries ever expect, the phrase “Chloe’s Giant Cookies lawsuit” has recently become associated with the brand.
This lawsuit isn’t about trademark disputes over sprinkles or underbaked centers. It has to do with TikTok.
Eight content creators, including Chloe Joy Sexton, the creator of Chloe’s Giant Cookies, have joined a federal lawsuit contesting a U.S. law that could essentially ban or force TikTok to sell. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, putting a baker from Memphis at the center of a national discussion about national security and free speech.
| Business Name | Chloe’s Giant Cookies |
|---|---|
| Owner | Chloe Joy Sexton |
| Location | Memphis, Tennessee |
| Industry | Bakery / E-commerce |
| Founded | Early 2020s (TikTok-driven growth) |
| Social Media Platform | TikTok (2.4M+ followers) |
| Legal Matter | Plaintiff in federal lawsuit challenging TikTok ban law |
| Court Involved | U.S. Supreme Court (TikTok-related case) |
| Official Website | https://chloesgiantcookies.com |
Perhaps this situation would have seemed ludicrous ten years ago. Bakers are bakers. Attorneys are litigators. Cases heard by the Supreme Court center on constitutional theory rather than cookie influencers. However, social media has made these distinctions hazy, transforming storefronts into algorithms and entrepreneurs into digital publishers.
TikTok played a major role in Sexton’s business development, as she amassed a user base of over two million. Her videos transformed a small kitchen business into a shipping-heavy e-commerce brand by fusing humor, grief, and giant cookies sliding out of ovens. Viral posts caused an increase in orders. Workers were employed. The packaging grew. There is a sense of momentum as you watch her feed scroll by, one that is both thrilling and brittle.
Sexton and other creators saw beyond geopolitics when Congress passed legislation citing national security concerns against TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance. They perceived existential danger. In interviews and court documents, Sexton claimed that TikTok was essential to her income. She thought her business would suffer greatly if the platform vanished.
That position has a certain amount of vulnerability. Establishing a business on a third-party platform is both risky and effective. Algorithms provide. Algorithms remove things. If a dominant platform disappears overnight, it remains unclear if small businesses like Chloe’s Giant Cookies can actually diversify quickly enough.
Customers in Memphis who are waiting in line for local pickups appear more interested in getting their cookies before a birthday party than they are in constitutional debates. A TikTok video of Sexton removing a giant cookie from the oven made one woman laugh while she was standing outside the bakery, checking her phone. The woman remarked, “She feels like family.” It is difficult to replicate that type of parasocial bond in other places.
Online responses to the lawsuit, however, have been conflicting. Critics contend that corporate interests are subordinated to national security. Others present the creators’ lawsuit as an exercise of their right to free speech. Comments on social media range from fervent support—“Fight for your right to speak!”—to scathing skepticism regarding data privacy and corporate motivations.
It’s difficult to overlook how this case reflects a larger conflict in contemporary entrepreneurship. Democratized opportunity was promised by the digital economy. An idea, a phone, and a ring light could create a brand. However, it also made users dependent on platforms whose ownership and policies are well out of their control.
The Supreme Court’s intervention turned the case from a specialized legal dispute to a national story. Outside the courthouse, cameras gathered. Legal experts discussed the implications of the First Amendment. And somewhere in Memphis, shipping labels were printed in batches, boxes were taped shut, and cookies kept baking.
Advocates for small businesses and investors are keeping a close eye on things. If the law is upheld, it may change how entrepreneurs and creators assess platform risk. If it fails, it might support the notion that online forums should have robust speech protections. In any event, the case will probably have an impact on the future organizational structure of internet companies.
A more subdued subplot is also present. Separate naming or branding disputes related to Sexton’s business identity have occasionally generated a lot of discussion on online forums. It’s unclear if those worries will reappear or subside. In the attention economy, brand names become lightning rods for speculation, and rumors spread swiftly.
However, TikTok continues to be at the center of the legal battle.
It seems as though Chloe’s Giant Cookies have evolved into a representation of something greater than dessert as we watch this happen. It stands for a generation of business owners who weren’t the first to open physical stores. They launched applications. Before they constructed storefronts, they developed audiences.
Trays rotate in a steady rhythm as the ovens in Memphis continue to glow, radiating heat into the kitchen. Customers continue to order, share, and scroll as of right now. The outcome of the lawsuit may influence future events, but it hasn’t stopped the dough from rising.
And maybe that’s the unspoken reality behind the news: in a city that unexpectedly finds itself linked to the nation’s highest court, the cookies continue to bake, big and unrepentant, while courts argue over constitutional limits.
