1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

K.M., a Minor, through her Guardian, C.M., 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

 

TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff K.M., a minor, by and through her Guardian C.M., on behalf of herself and those 

similarly situated, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendants TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”)

and ByteDance, Inc. (“ByteDance”) (collectively the “Defendants”). The following allegations are 

based upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s own facts, upon investigation by Plaintiff’s

counsel, and upon information and belief where facts are solely in the possession of Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. According to the Department of Homeland Security, biometrics are unique physical 

characteristics, such as fingerprints, that can be used for automated recognition. An individual’s 

facial geometry is one of many examples of biometrics, and is achieved through facial recognition 

software. 

2. Unlike other unique identifiers that can be changed when compromised – such as 

social security numbers or financial information – biometrics are inherently unique to each 

individual and unchangeable.

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2

3. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (the “Act”), effective October 3, 

2008, prohibits, inter alia, the collection, dissemination, and profit from individual’s biometric 

identifiers, such as facial geometry, without providing written notice and procuring a release from 

the individuals. The Act also requires specific a retention and data destruction policies to safeguard

the sensitive biometric data and, ultimately, prevent its disclosure. 

4. Defendant TikTok, Inc. owns TikTok, a popular social networking application that 

allows users to share videos and that has been reportedly downloaded 1.5 billion times.

1 According 

to its website, TikTik is “the destination for short-form mobile videos.” Approximately 41% of 

TikTok users are aged between 16 and 24.2 TikTok, Inc. is owned by ByteDance, based in Beijing, 

China, and utilizes facial recognition and machine learning algorithms. 

5. This privacy-based class action concerns TikTok’s reported connections to the 

Chinese government. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has called for a formal investigation into 

whether TikTik poses a national security risk, with Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom 

Cotton (R-AR) following suit.

6. The United States Army, following guidance issued by the Pentagon, has banned 

the use of TikTok by servicemembers on government-issued devices.3 The Marine Corps issued a 

similar ban.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendants have collected, stored, disclosed and 

otherwise disseminated Illinois resident minor TikTok users’ facial geometric scans. In so doing, 

Defendants failed to comply with the Act’s requirements to provide written notice and procuring 

releases. 

1 https://www.vox.com/open-sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-china-national-security-investigation

(last visited May 12, 2020). 

2 https://www.omnicoreagency.com/tiktok-statistics/ (last visited May 12, 2020). 

3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/tiktok-pentagon-military-ban.html (last visited May 12, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
3

8. As such, Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered harm as a result of the 

violations of the Act alleged herein. 

9. Defendants also violated Illinois’ public policy that grants citizens the power to 

make decisions about the fate of their unique biometric identifiers and information. 

PARTIES

10. At relevant times, Plaintiff K.M., a minor, and Plaintiff’s Guardian, C.M., were 

both residents of Illinois. Plaintiff K.M. used the TikTok app, and thus Defendants performed 

facial geometric scans of Plaintiff. 

11. Defendant TikTok, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the state of California 

with its principal place of business located in Culver City, California. TikTok, Inc. has a registered 

agent in Illinois. 

12. Defendant ByteDance, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware 

with its principal place of business located in Palo Alto, California. ByteDance, Inc. has a 

registered agent in Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332 because: (1) there are one hundred or more (named or unnamed) class members, (2) there is 

an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 

(3) there is minimal diversity because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states. 

This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1367. 

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants obtained, 

stored, and disseminated data from class members in Illinois, including their biometric identifiers. 

Further, the class members, as Illinois residents, created and uploaded images and videos in 

Illinois. Defendants’ violations alleged herein harmed Illinois residents. 

15. Venue is proper in this jurisdictional district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 

because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred 

in Illinois. Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. TikTok

16. TikTok, originally known as Douyin, was launched in China in September of 2016 

by Defendant ByteDance, Inc. TikTok first became available for downloaded in the United States 

in August of 2018. 

17. TikTok and Douyin are similar apps but are run on separate servers in order to 

comply with China’s censorship policies.

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
5

18. As described above, TikTok allows users to create short videos, and has 

popularized lip-synching music videos and short sketch-comedy videos. 

19. Approximately 41% of TikTok users are between the ages of 16 and 24 and there 

are approximately 800 million monthly active users as of February 2020.

20. TikTok utilizes facial recognition technology that scans every video uploaded to 

the app for faces and then extracts geometric data relating to the unique features of each face

through the use of an artificial intelligence program. TikTok then uses that data to generate a 

template of the individual’s unique biometric facial identifiers. At no point is the individual 

informed of this practice by TikTok. The artificial intelligence program also allows users to use 

filters to alter their faces, or impose other faces on features onto their own faces.

21. Upon information and belief, Defendants have violated the Act by collecting the 

biometric information of Plaintiff and Class Members and then disclosing, and disseminating those 

biometric identifiers and information to other related corporate entities without providing written

notice and procuring releases.

22. Defendants also violated the Act by failing to utilize a reasonable standard of care 

to protect the biometric identifiers from disclosure and, by their own admission, have disclosed 

it.

4 Indeed, according to their privacy policy, Defendants “share the categories of personal 

information listed above with service providers and business partners to help us perform business 

operations and for business purposes.”

23. In further violation of the Act, as a private entity in possession of Plaintiff’s and 

Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information, Defendants failed to adopt or make 

available to the public a retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying such 

4 https://www.tiktok.com/legal/privacy-policy?lang=en (accessed May 12, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
6

biometric identifiers and information once the initial purpose for collecting them had or has been 

satisfied.

24. Defendants intentionally and recklessly violated the Act.

II. Plaintiff K.M.

25. Plaintiff K.M., a minor, has, within the applicable statute of limitations, uploaded 

and posted numerous videos to TikTok which include images of her face, and her face has appeared 

in other users’ uploaded videos. Plaintiff has uploaded videos, and/or Plaintiff’s face has appeared 

in videos uploaded by other users, employing TikTok’s face sticker, face filter, and face tracker 

lens technology.

26. Through these videos, Defendants have collected and stored Plaintiff’s unique 

biometric identifiers or biometric information. Upon information and belief, Defendants have 

disclosed and/or disseminated these biometric identifiers or biometric information to third parties.

27. Plaintiff and the putative class do not know which, or how many, individuals or 

entities have accessed their biometric identifiers, exposing them to the imminent and certainly 

impending injuries of identity theft, fraud, stalking, surveillance, social engineering and other 

invasions of privacy.5

28. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff and the class’ biometric information 

has been compromised.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

29. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf, and on behalf of the following class 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3):

5 “Facial Recognition Tech: 10 Views on Risks and Rewards,” at 

https://www.equifax.co.uk/resources/identity_protection/facial-recognition-and-identity-risk.html (last 

accessed on May 12, 2020)

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
7

Illinois Class

All residents of Illinois who registered for or used the TikTok Application when 

aged 14 through 17, and their parents and/or legal guardians.

30. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their affiliates, employees, officers, and 

directors, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, change, or 

expand the Class definitions based on discovery and further investigation.

31. Numerosity. Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder 

of all members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities of individual members of 

the Class are unknown at this time, such information being in the sole possession of Defendants

and obtainable by Plaintiff only through the discovery process, Plaintiff believes, and on that basis 

alleges, that there are tens of thousands of members of the class. 

32. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law: Common 

questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class. These questions predominate over 

the questions affecting individual class members. These common legal and factual questions 

include, but are not limited to, whether:

a. Whether Defendants collected and stored Plaintiff’s and the class’ biometric 

identifiers;

b. Whether Defendants disseminated, or provided access to, the 

aforementioned biometric indicators;

c. Whether Defendants provided notice to Plaintiff and the Class before 

collecting the aforementioned biometric indicators;

d. Whether Defendants procured releases for the use and dissemination of the 

aforementioned biometric indicators;

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
8

e. Whether Defendants maintained retention and destruction policies required 

for the aforementioned biometric indicators; and

f. Whether Defendants actions have caused Plaintiff and the class members 

damages; 

g. Whether Defendants’ actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s and 

the class’ damages.

33. Typicality. All of Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages including, but not limited 

to, ascertainable losses arising out of Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is advancing the 

same claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all absent Class members.

34. Adequacy. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not 

conflict with the interests of the Class that she seeks to represent, she has retained counsel 

competent and highly experienced in complex class action litigation, and together they intend to 

prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected 

by Plaintiff and her counsel.

35. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means of fair and 

efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and members of the class. The injury suffered by 

each individual class member is relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of 

individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s 

conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of the class individually to effectively 

redress the wrongs done to them. Even if the class members could afford such individual litigation, 

the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
9

and to the court system, presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, 

the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of 

single adjudication, an economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Upon 

information and belief, members of the Class can be readily identified and notified based on, inter 

alia, Defendants’ database of user accounts.

36. 81. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable 

to the Class, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

740 ILCS § 14/15 

37. Plaintiff and the class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding 

paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

38. Defendants violated the Act by their failure to develop and implement a policy –

made available for public inspection – that, inter alia, established a retention schedule and 

guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. 

39. Defendants’ violations of the Act were intentional and reckless or, alternatively, 

negligent.

40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Act, Plaintiff and 

the class have suffered and will continue to suffer injury.

41. Plaintiff and the class seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages.

42. Until this Court issues an order granting Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, 

Defendants’ wrongful conduct will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the class 

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
10

because their biometric identifiers will be viewed and used by unauthorized persons in 

contravention to the Act. Plaintiff and the class have no adequate remedy at law because a

judgment for monetary damages will not end Defendants’ practices related to Plaintiff’s and the 

class’ biometric identifiers.

43. Plaintiff and the class also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the recovery 

of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

COUNT II

VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT 

740 ILCS § 14/15(b)

44. Plaintiff and the class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding 

paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

45. Defendants violated the Act through collecting, capturing, and otherwise obtaining 

individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the biometric identifiers and 

information of Plaintiff and Class Members, without providing the required written notice and 

without procuring written releases. 

46. Defendants’ violations of the Act were intentional and reckless or, alternatively, 

negligent.

47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Act, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury.

48. Plaintiff and Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, alternatively, $1,000 or actual damages.

49. Until this Court issues an order granting Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, 

Defendants’ wrongful conduct will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the class 

because their biometric identifiers will be viewed and used by unauthorized persons in 

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
11

contravention to the Act. Plaintiff and the class have no adequate remedy at law because a 

judgment for monetary damages will not end Defendants’ practices related to Plaintiff’s and the 

class’ biometric identifiers.

50. Plaintiff and the class also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the recovery 

of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

COUNT III

VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT 

740 ILCS § 14/15(d)

51. Plaintiff and the class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding 

paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

52. Defendants violated the Act by disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise 

disseminating individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the biometric 

identifiers and information of Plaintiff and class members. Defendants did so without receiving 

consent, without completing a financial transaction requested or authorized by the subjects of the 

biometric identifiers and information or their authorized representatives. Moreover, the disclosure 

and redisclosure was not required by state or federal law or municipal ordinance, and was also not

was not required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena.

53. Defendants’ violations of the Act were intentional and reckless or, alternatively, 

negligent.

54. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Act, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury.

55. Plaintiff and Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, alternatively, $1,000 or actual damages.

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
12

56. Until this Court issues an order granting Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, 

Defendants’ wrongful conduct will continue to cause irreparable injury to Plaintiff and the class 

because their biometric identifiers will be viewed and used by unauthorized persons in 

contravention to the Act. Plaintiff and the class have no adequate remedy at law because a 

judgment for monetary damages will not end Defendants’ practices related to Plaintiff’s and the 

class’ biometric identifiers.

57. Plaintiff and the class also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the recovery 

of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

COUNT IV

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

58. Plaintiff and the class incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding 

paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.

59. Plaintiff and the class request injunctive relief to require Defendants to comply with

their obligations under the Act so Plaintiff and the class can control their biometric identifiers and 

information. 

60. Plaintiff and the class have no adequate remedy at law because a legal remedy 

cannot undo the unlawful collection and disclosure of their biometric identifiers. 

61. Plaintiff and the class will continue to suffer irreparable harm caused by Defendants

if their conduct is not so restrained, making injunctive relief necessary.

62. Plaintiff and the class are likely to succeed on the merits in this litigation because 

Defendants unlawfully collected and disclosed Plaintiff and the class’ biometric identifiers and 

information, in violation of the Act.

63. Plaintiff and the class seek injunctive relief: (a) that prohibits Defendants from any 

further use of Plaintiff and the class’ biometric identifiers and information; (b) that prohibits 

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
13

Defendants from continuing to collect, disclose, and/or profit from Plaintiff’s and the classes’

biometric identifiers and information; (c) ordering Defendants to delete and destroy Plaintiff’s and 

the class’ biometric identifiers and information; and (d) ordering Defendants to retrieve and 

destroy the biometric identifiers and information from any third parties to whom Defendants

disclosed it.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and members of the Class, 

respectfully requests that this Court: 

A. determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action 

under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue an order certifying the class as 

defined above;

B. appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the class and her counsel as class 

counsel; 

C. award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, and consequential damages 

and restitution to which Plaintiff and the class members are entitled;

D. award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; 

E. grant appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief, including, without 

limitation, an order that requires Defendants to immediately stop collecting, using, and 

disseminating individuals’ biometric identifiers;

F. award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

G. grant such further relief that this Court deems appropriate. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims so triable.

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
14

Dated: May 13, 2020

 By: /S/ Richard R. Gordon

Richard R. Gordon

Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.

111 West Washington Street

Suite 1240

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Tel: (312) 332-5200

Fax: (312) 242-4966

rrg@gordonlawchicago.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class

Joseph G. Sauder

Joseph B. Kenney

Sauder Schelkopf LLC

1109 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

Telephone: 610-200-0580

jgs@sstriallawyers.com

jbk@sstriallawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class

Case: 1:20-cv-02883 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/13/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14