throbber
Case CAN/5:20-cv-03212 Document 33 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER
`PRIVACY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 2948
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in an action pending in the Southern District of Illinois moves
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. The litigation consists of the ten
`actions listed on the attached Schedule A, five in the Northern District of California, four in the
`Northern District of Illinois, and one in the Southern District of Illinois. The Panel has been notified
`of nine potentially-related actions.1 All responding parties, including defendants,2 support
`centralization, but differ as to an appropriate transferee district. Suggested districts include the
`Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois,
`and the Southern District of Illinois.
`
`After considering the arguments of counsel,3 we find that these actions involve common
`questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
`promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The common factual issues concern
`defendants’ TikTok app, a highly popular social networking app used to create and share short
`videos. Plaintiffs in all actions challenge defendants’ conduct with respect to the scanning, capture,
`retention, and dissemination of the facial geometry and other biometric information of users of the
`app. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery and the possibility of inconsistent rulings
`on class certification and other pretrial matters, as well as conserve judicial and party resources.
`
`We select the Northern District of Illinois as transferee district. Four of the ten actions, as
`well as three potential tag-along actions, are pending in the Northern District of Illinois, and have
`
`One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this
`*
`litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.
`
`These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
`1
`1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
`
`2
`Musical.ly.
`
`TikTok, Inc., ByteDance Inc., Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd., and
`
`In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel
`3
`heard oral argument by video conference at its hearing session of July 30, 2020. See Suppl. Notice
`of Hearing Session, MDL No. 2946 (J.P.M.L. July 14, 2020), ECF No. 63.
`
`

`

`Case CAN/5:20-cv-03212 Document 33 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`-2-
`
`been proceeding in an organized fashion (for example, the actions have been consolidated, interim
`lead plaintiffs’ counsel has been appointed, and a consolidated complaint has been filed). And,
`although common defendants ByteDance, Inc., and TikTok, Inc., are headquartered in California,
`they support selection of the Northern District of Illinois,4 as do multiple plaintiffs. The Honorable
`John Z. Lee, to whom we assign the litigation, is an experienced jurist. He is presiding over the
`related Northern District of Illinois actions, and has been actively managing them to date. We are
`confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, and, with the
`consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John Z. Lee for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
`proceedings.
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
` Chair
`
`Ellen Segal Huvelle
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`
`R. David Proctor
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`
`Specifically, in their response, defendants state that they “equally” support
`4
`centralization in either the Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of California. Defs.’
`Joint Response at 1 (ECF No. 30).
`
`

`

`Case CAN/5:20-cv-03212 Document 33 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`IN RE: TIKTOK, INC., CONSUMER
`PRIVACY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 2948
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`Northern District of California
`
`IN RE: TIKTOK, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION, C.A. No. 5:19-07792
`P.S., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-02992
`D.M., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03185
`R.S., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03212
`S.A. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03294
`
`Northern District of Illinois
`
`E.R. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-02810
`MARKS v. TIKTOK, INC., C.A. No. 1:20-02883
`D.H. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-02884
`L.B. v. TIKTOK, INC., C.A. No. 1:20-02889
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`A.S. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-00457
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket