Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 1 of 57 PageID #:2006
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`MDL No. 2948
`
`IN RE: TIKTOK, INC.,
`CONSUMER PRIVACY
`LITIGATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`This Document Relates to All Cases
`
`
`Master Docket No. 20-cv-4699
`
`Judge John Z. Lee
`
`Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 2 of 57 PageID #:2007
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... ii
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.................................................................... 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ...................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`The Risks of TikTok’s Defenses to Plaintiffs and the Class ............................................ 4
`C.
`Litigation and Procedural History .................................................................................... 8
`D.
`The Settlement Agreement ............................................................................................. 12
`1.
`Proposed Class Definition ........................................................................................... 12
`2. Monetary Relief .......................................................................................................... 12
`3.
`Plan of Allocation ....................................................................................................... 13
`4.
`Injunctive Relief .......................................................................................................... 14
`5.
`Notice and Settlement Administration Costs .............................................................. 15
`6.
`Release ........................................................................................................................ 16
`7.
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for Class Counsel, and Service Awards for Class
`Representatives ........................................................................................................... 16
`Class Size Representations and Confirmatory Discovery .......................................... 17
`8.
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 18
`A.
`This Settlement well surpasses the Seventh Circuit’s standards for the approval of class
`action settlements. .......................................................................................................... 18
`The Settlement should be preliminarily approved. ........................................................ 19
`The Settlement provides substantial relief to the Class, particularly given the risks
`posed by continued litigation. ..................................................................................... 20
`The Settlement value is well within the range of reasonableness. .............................. 23
`Continued litigation would be complex, costly, and lengthy. ..................................... 32
`Proposed Class Counsel are competent, well-informed, and experienced and they
`strongly endorse the Settlement. ................................................................................. 34
`The Settlement was reached after significant analysis and arm’s-length negotiation. 34
`The Class and Subclass should be provisionally certified for settlement purposes. ...... 37
`The requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied. ............................................................. 38
`The requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied. ........................................................ 43
`Court-Appointed Co-Lead Counsel are experienced and knowledgeable and have
`dedicated themselves to this case; they should be appointed Class Counsel. ................ 44
`The proposed class notice plan provides the best practicable notice and does so in an
`easily understood format. ............................................................................................... 45
`The Court should schedule a fairness hearing to finally approve the settlement. .......... 47
`F.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 47
`
`B.
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`C.
`1.
`2.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 3 of 57 PageID #:2008
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Am. Int’l Grp., Inc. v. ACE INA Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 07 C 2898, 2011 WL 3290302 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011) ................................................... 34
`
`Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................................ 37, 43
`
`Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. Of the City of Milwaukee,
`616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) ........................................................................................ 18, 20, 34
`
`Borcea v. Carnival Corp.,
`238 F.R.D. 664 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ............................................................................................... 33
`
`Carrier iQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`No. 12-md-02330-EMC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114235 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) ............. 30
`
`Cotton v. Hinton,
`559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................. 32
`
`CV Reit, Inc. v. Levy,
`144 F.R.D. 690 (S.D. Fla. 1992) ............................................................................................... 41
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig.,
`No. 15-cv-03747-JD, 2018 WL 2197546 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) ....................................... 22
`
`Facebook BIPA,
`No. 3:15-cv-03747, 2020 WL 4818608 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020) ............................. 25, 26, 26
`
`Fogarazzao v. Lehman Bros., Inc.,
`232 F.R.D. 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .............................................................................................. 41
`
`Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC,
`No. CV 14-734-GW(FFMx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193865, at *23 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17,
`2015) ......................................................................................................................................... 36
`
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`966 F. Supp. 2d 939 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 4 of 57 PageID #:2009
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases (cont.)
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .................................................................................................................. 44
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Harris v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.,
`No. 07-cv-2512, 2008 WL 400862 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008) ..................................................... 44
`
`In re AT&T Mobility Wireless Data Servs. Sales Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 330 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litig.,
`80 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Ill. 2015) .......................................................................................... 30
`
`In re Equifax Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`MDL Docket No. 2800, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118209 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) ............... 31
`
`In re Google Buzz Privacy Litig.,
`No. C 10-00672 JW, 2011 WL 7460099 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) .......................................... 30
`
`In re Google LLC Street View Electronic Communications Litigation,
`No. 3:10-md-02184, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47928 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) ...................... 30
`
`In re Mexico Money Transfer Litig.,
`164 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2000) ...................................................................................... 34
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
`No. 5:11-cv-00379, 2013 WL 1120801 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) ................................... 29, 33
`
`In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 23
`
`In re Nissan Radiator,
`No. 10 CV 7493 (VB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116720 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013) ................. 37
`
`In re Northfield Labs., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 06 C 1493, 2012 WL 366852 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2012) ..................................................... 46
`
`In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-8176, 2013 WL 4510197 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2013) ................................................ 20
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 5 of 57 PageID #:2010
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases (cont.)
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`In re Warner Commc’ns Sec. Litig.,
`618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)............................................................................................ 35
`
`Isby v. Bayh,
`75 F.3d 1191 (7th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 18, 19, 20, 34
`
`Johnson v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-5468, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161155 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2018) ............................... 5
`
`Kaye v. Amicus Mediation & Arbitration Group, Inc.,
`300 F.R.D. 67 (D. Conn. 2014)................................................................................................. 43
`
`Kessler v. Am. Resorts International’s Holiday Network, Ltd.,
`No. 05 C, 5944, 2007 WL 4105204 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2007) ................................................. 19
`
`Kline v. Dymatize Enters., LLC,
`No. 15-CV-2348-AJB-RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142774 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2016) ........ 36
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 20, 29, 33
`
`Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC,
`No. 11CV1009 JLS (MDD), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144490 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2011) ........ 36
`
`McCabe v. Crawford & Co.,
`210 F.R.D. 631 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`McKinnie v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`678 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Wis. 2009) ...................................................................................... 34
`
`Medeiros v. HSBC Card Servs.,
`No. CV 15-09093 JVS (AFMx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178484 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) .. 30
`
`Miracle-Pond v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-04722, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86083 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2020) ............................... 5
`
`Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
`339 U.S. 306 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 6 of 57 PageID #:2011
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases (cont.)
`
`Parker v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc.,
`206 F.R.D. 211 (N.D. Ill. 2002) ................................................................................................ 41
`
`Parker v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P.,
`631 F. Supp. 2d 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ...................................................................................... 30
`
`Peter v. DoorDash, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-06098-JST, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1967568 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) ....... 5
`
`Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC,
`320 F.R.D. 198 (W.D. Mo. 2017) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co.,
`704 F.3d 489 ............................................................................................................................. 44
`
`Roach v. T.L. Cannon Corp.,
`773 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................... 43
`
`Schulte v. Fifth Third Bank,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 560 (N.D. Ill. 2011) .................................................................................. 32, 33
`
`Simerlein v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`No. 3:17-cv-1091 (VAB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96742 (D. Conn. June 10, 2019) .............. 36
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................... 24
`
`Synfuel Techs, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.,
`463 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 19, 20, 34
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`565 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................. 38
`
`Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.,
`820 F.3d 482 (1st Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Young v. Rolling in the Dough, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-CV-07825, 2020 WL 969616 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2020) ............................................ 19
`
`Zyburo v. NCSPlus, Inc.,
`44 F. Supp. 3d 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ......................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 7 of 57 PageID #:2012
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C § 2710(c)(2) ................................................................................................................... 29
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 ........................................................................................................................... 31
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 47
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1601 ............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1701 ............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`740 ILCS §14/1 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`California Civil Code § 3344 ........................................................................................................ 30
`
`Section 301 of Title 3, United States Code ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .......................................................................................................................... 44
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ......................................................................................................... 38, 41, 42
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ................................................................................................................. 38
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) ........................................................................................................... 38
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ................................................................................................................. 38
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ................................................................................................................. 41
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................................... 41, 42
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) ...................................................................................... 45
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)................................................................................................................. 43
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(i)-(vii) ............................................................................................... 46
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ................................................................................................................. 46
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 8 of 57 PageID #:2013
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rules (cont.)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) ..................................................................................................................... 45
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) ................................................................................................ 44
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B), (2), (4) .............................................................................................. 44
`
`Other Authorities
`
`4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ..................................................................... 18
`
`H. Newberg, A. Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ................................. 36
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004) .............................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 9 of 57 PageID #:2014
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`After more than a year of litigation, an expert-led inside look at TikTok’s source code, two
`
`hard-fought mediations strategized by top firms from the plaintiffs’ bar and guided by renowned
`
`mediator Honorable Layn Phillips (ret.), and subsequent negotiations for additional relief after Co-
`
`Lead Counsel was appointed, Plaintiffs have achieved a $92 million non-reversionary cash
`
`settlement fund and meaningful injunctive relief for the Settlement Class.1 In reaching this
`
`substantial result, Plaintiffs overcame concrete litigation risks and capitalized on unique defense-
`
`side political and settlement pressures.
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs faced material risks stemming from arbitration clauses and class action
`
`waivers. And they asserted highly technical legal claims, rooted in developing areas of data privacy
`
`law, arising from Defendants’ novel technology. But Plaintiffs were unrelenting in their pursuit of
`
`class-wide relief and took advantage of unique political factors (including the potential for a
`
`presidentially mandated rush sale) resulting in an outstanding recovery for Plaintiffs and the Class.
`
`This multidistrict litigation (MDL) consists of 21 putative class actions against U.S.
`
`defendants TikTok Inc. (“TikTok”) and ByteDance Technology Inc. (“ByteDance”), and foreign
`
`defendants TikTok, Ltd. and Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd. (“Beijing ByteDance”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants” or, in the Settlement, “Defendant’s Released Parties”). The cases
`
`allege that Defendants invaded Plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ privacy through the popular
`
`TikTok application and its predecessor application Musical.ly (the “App”), a video-sharing social
`
`networking service used to create short videos.
`
`
`1 Capitalized terms have the same meanings as set forth in the September 4, 2020 Settlement Agreement
`and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), as clarified by the February 16, 2021 Addendum No. 1 to
`Settlement Agreement and Release (“Addendum”) (collectively, the “Settlement”) attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 10 of 57 PageID #:2015
`
`
`
`Though the litigation has been contentious, both as among Plaintiffs pre-MDL, and vis-à-
`
`vis Defendants, the settling Parties have reached consensus, and jointly endorse the proposed
`
`Settlement now before the Court. The Settlement provides substantial relief to the Class, including
`
`a non-reversionary $92 million cash fund to pay Class members, and prospective injunctive relief
`
`that addresses the complained-of conduct by requiring TikTok to make disclosures in keeping with
`
`the laws Plaintiffs claim were violated and to initiate a newly designed data privacy compliance
`
`training program for all TikTok employees and contractors.
`
`A recovery of this magnitude ranks among the nation’s highest privacy-related settlements,
`
`even in those matters involving significant statutory damages claims. The proposed Settlement
`
`will also eliminate the risk and uncertainty of continued proceedings in this Court, in which the
`
`foreign Defendants would contest personal jurisdiction and the domestic Defendants would
`
`immediately pursue motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.
`
`Balancing the risks against the substantial attendant benefits, the Court should find that the
`
`Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and enter an Order (i) granting preliminary approval
`
`of the Settlement Agreement; (ii) provisionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes; (iii)
`
`appointing Class Representatives and Class Counsel; (iv) approving the form and manner of the
`
`Notice Plan and appointing a Settlement Administrator; (v) establishing deadlines for requests for
`
`exclusion and the filing of objections to the proposed settlement contemplated by the Settlement
`
`Agreement; (vi) finding that the parties have complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1715; and (vii) scheduling
`
`a fairness hearing.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations
`
`This case involves Defendants’ collection, use, and transmission of highly sensitive
`
`personal data via Defendants’ ubiquitous TikTok app. See Consolidated Amended Class Action
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 11 of 57 PageID #:2016
`
`
`
`Complaint (“Complaint”), ECF No. 114. The App allows users to create and share 60-second
`
`videos—typically of people doing activities such as dancing, lip-syncing, and stunts—and boasts
`
`a substantial worldwide fanbase. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 128, 131, 134. TikTok’s popularity has exploded over
`
`the past year as the COVID-19 pandemic has left users bored and spending more time at home.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the TikTok app infiltrates its users’ devices and extracts
`
`a broad array of private data including biometric data and content that Defendants use to track and
`
`profile TikTok users for the purpose of, among other things, ad targeting and profit. Id. at ¶¶ 9-18,
`
`137-192, 240-298, 402-417.
`
`With regard to Plaintiffs’ core claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
`
`(BIPA), 740 ILCS §14/1, et seq., the Complaint alleges that the App uses a complex system of
`
`artificial intelligence to recognize facial features in users’ videos, which allows the user to use
`
`various filters and stickers. Id. at ¶¶ 240-281, 402-417. Plaintiffs allege that the App also analyzes
`
`faces to determine the user’s age, race/ethnicity, and gender, using proprietary algorithms to
`
`attempt to prevent minor children from using the App and to recommend content and profiles for
`
`the user to follow. Id. at ¶¶ 242-243, 245, 250, 258-259. By utilizing this private and biometric
`
`information, Plaintiffs contend, TikTok maintains a competitive advantage over other social media
`
`apps and profits from its use of improperly obtained data, all while failing to comply with the
`
`minimum requirements for handling users’ biometric data established by BIPA.
`
`The Complaint also alleges violations of a number of other statutory, common law, and
`
`constitutional claims arising from Defendants’ alleged taking and transmission of other private,
`
`legally protected data. Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
`
`(CFAA), California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), California
`
`Constitutional Right to Privacy, California Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws, Video
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 12 of 57 PageID #:2017
`
`
`
`Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), Intrusion Upon Seclusion, and Restitution/Unjust Enrichment. Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 338-401. Underlying Plaintiffs’ VPPA claim, for example, are allegations that TikTok
`
`unlawfully transmitted class members’ personal and private viewing histories to third parties like
`
`Facebook and Google. Id. at ¶ 159. In support of their CFAA claim, as another example, Plaintiffs
`
`allege that Defendants exceeded the scope of their authorized access to Plaintiffs’ and class
`
`members’ devices and the private information contained on those devices. Id. at ¶ 340.
`
`While these data privacy violations alone support Plaintiffs’ legal claims, TikTok’s
`
`apparent ties to China compound Plaintiffs’ concerns. Id. at ¶¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that
`
`Defendants do not adequately disclose that user data collected from Plaintiffs is stored and shared
`
`with affiliates in countries outside the United States, such as China (conduct which TikTok denies).
`
`Beijing ByteDance has spent the last decade using technologies such as artificial intelligence and
`
`facial recognition. Id. at ¶ 271. Defendants’ reported connections to the Chinese government have
`
`very recently come under close public scrutiny and several U.S. Senators formally requested a risk
`
`assessment of Defendants’ data collection activities, and the U.S. Department of Defense issued
`
`an internal memorandum encouraging its employees to avoid installing the App. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6, 200,
`
`203, 205, 219, 342.
`
`B. The Risks of TikTok’s Defenses to Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`TikTok has taken the position that the foreign Defendants are not subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs’ claims are based on speculation about how the App works and an
`
`incorrect interpretation of governing law.
`
`First, TikTok has repeatedly asserted that Plaintiffs’ claims are subject to an arbitration and
`
`class action waiver agreement. According to TikTok, at all relevant times, every TikTok user
`
`agreed to an arbitration and class-waiver provision in the App’s Terms of Service (“Terms”). When
`
`users create their accounts in the App, they encounter a sign-in screen with hyperlinks to the Terms
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 13 of 57 PageID #:2018
`
`
`
`that read: “By continuing, you agree to TikTok’s Terms of Use and confirm that you have read
`
`TikTok’s Privacy Policy.”
`
`While Plaintiffs believe TikTok’s policies were not adequately presented or otherwise
`
`disclosed to its users, and that class members should not be bound by their provisions, Plaintiffs
`
`acknowledge that courts have consistently held that users were on notice of—and thus had agreed
`
`to—virtually identical disclosures. See, e.g., Miracle-Pond v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 19-cv-04722,
`
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86083, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2020) (granting motion to compel
`
`arbitration and staying class action where contract was formed with hyperlinked policies near a
`
`sign-in button); Peter v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 19-CV-06098-JST, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL
`
`1967568, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) (same); Johnson v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-cv-5468,
`
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161155, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2018) (same); Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) (reversing denial of motion to compel arbitration where website
`
`required acknowledgment of agreement before proceeding).
`
`According to TikTok, even minors who may be able to disaffirm the arbitration agreement
`
`may not be able to establish disaffirmance collectively on behalf of a class because disaffirmance
`
`purportedly presents individualized issues. Thus, TikTok’s position is that arbitration would create
`
`a dispositive threshold procedural problem for Plaintiffs before any factual or legal merits are even
`
`considered. And even if minors could overcome the arbitration agreement through disaffirmance,
`
`some of the claims asserted in this litigation would, according to TikTok, be released in connection
`
`with another action, T.K., et al. v. Bytedance Technology Co., Ltd. Et al., No. 1:19-cv-07915 (N.D.
`
`Ill.), if not for the settlement benefits achieved here. As part of the Settlement, TikTok has agreed
`
`not to dispute claims filed by members of the class in T.K.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 14 of 57 PageID #:2019
`
`
`
`In addition, with respect to the foreign Defendants, TikTok has repeatedly asserted that
`
`they do not have sufficient contacts with any of the forums in which the underlying putative class
`
`actions were filed for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction because the foreign entities have
`
`no direct relationship with Plaintiffs and do not operate in the United States. Though Plaintiffs
`
`believe they could overcome the jurisdictional hurdle with discovery, Defendants’ arguments carry
`
`a significant risk if this case were to proceed in litigation.
`
`If Plaintiffs were able to overcome these procedural issues, TikTok has asserted multiple
`
`defenses to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. With regard to BIPA, for example, TikTok has
`
`represented that TikTok does not and never has collected from its users any biometric identifiers
`
`or derivative information protected by law, nor has it ever shared U.S. user data with the Chinese
`
`government. Defendants have expressed their confidence that, if this case were to proceed on a
`
`litigation track, they will secure a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) dismissal for
`
`failure to state a claim based on, inter alia, technical arguments that: (1) Defendants’ App compiles
`
`only anonymized, generalized “demographic data” through “facial landmarking,” and does not
`
`collect any biometric information of TikTok users; and (2) even if the information the App utilizes
`
`does constitute biometric information within the meaning of BIPA, that information resides on the
`
`users’ devices, and is not collected or stored by Defendants within the meaning of applicable law.
`
`In support of its position that it has not violated BIPA, TikTok has asserted that its user
`
`video data is not used to identify anyone. TikTok has explained that App users cannot tag or label
`
`faces in videos with a user’s real name or identity. This contrasts with Facebook, for example,
`
`which requires its users to use and display “the same name that you use in everyday life” when
`
`using Facebook. Facebook also allows users to tag the faces of their friends and themselves in
`
`photos and videos. Because Facebook users must use their real names, their faces are tagged with
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 122 Filed: 02/25/21 Page 15 of 57 PageID #:2020
`
`
`
`their real names whenever they are tagged in a photo or video. By contrast, TikTok does not have
`
`a face-tagging feature, nor a real name requirement, and thus does not associate a particular face
`
`with an individual’s identity.
`
`The TikTok App also has special effects features that enable users to alter, enhance, and
`
`modify their facial features in their video images. TikTok has explained that the technique
`
`employed to enable these special effects features is called “landmarking” and uses artificial
`
`intelligence to locate the position of a face or specific facial features within a video frame, e.g., the
`
`location of a nose relative to the location of the eyes. That general “landmarking,” according to
`
`TikTok, does not involve generating any face template or personally identifiable data, and thus
`
`does not give rise to biometric privacy violations under BIPA.
`
`Although