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
`
`