EXHIBIT 7

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:2346 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:1474
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE TIKTOK INC. DATA PRIVACY 

LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL DOCKET NO. ______________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR THE TRANSFER OF 

RELATED ACTIONS TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, FOR 

COORDINATED OR CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:2347 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:1475 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 16
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 3

I. Transfer and Consolidation in One District is Appropriate .................................... 3

A. The Related Actions Share Common Questions of Law and Fact.............. 4

B. Transfer Will Promote Convenient, Just, and Efficient Litigation of the 

Related Actions........................................................................................... 7

II. The Southern District of Illinois is the Most Appropriate Forum .......................... 8

III. In the Alternative, the Northern District of Illinois is a Suitable Forum.............. 10

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 11

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:2348 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:1476 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 16
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

In re Aimster Copyright Litig.,

177 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2001)....................................................................................... 11

In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind. on Oct. 31, 1994,

948 F. Supp. 747 (N.D. Ill. 1996) ................................................................................................ 9

In re Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litig.,

416 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (J.P.M.L. 2006)......................................................................................... 8

In re Ameriquest Mortg. Co. Mortg. Lending Practices Litig.,

408 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2005)....................................................................................... 11

In re Auto Body Shop,

2014 WL 3908000 (J.P.M.L. 2014)............................................................................................. 7

In re Capital One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig.,

908 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2012)....................................................................................... 11

In re Caterpillar, Inc., C13 & C15 Engine Prod. Liab. Litig.,

26 F. Supp. 3d 1394 (J.P.M.L. 2014)........................................................................................... 8

In re: Chrysler LLC 2.7 Liter V–6 Engine Oil Sludge Prods. Liab. Litig.,

598 F.Supp.2d 1372 (J.P.M.L.2009)............................................................................................ 6

In re: Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prod. Liab. Litig.,

780 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011)......................................................................................... 6

In re Fresh & Processed Potatoes Antitrust Litig.,

744 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2010)......................................................................................... 8

In re Gen. Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prod. Liab. Litig.,

293 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2003)......................................................................................... 9

In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.,

24 F. Supp. 3d 1361 (J.P.M.L. 2014)........................................................................................... 4

In re Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litig.,

338 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (J.P.M.L. 2018)......................................................................................... 6

In re McDonald’s Corp. Promotional Games Litig.,

192 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2002)....................................................................................... 11

In re Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Litigation Involving Library Editions of 

Children’s Books, MDL Nos. 2, 5, 6 & 7,

297 F. Supp. 385 (J.P.M.L. 1968).............................................................................................. 11

In re: N. Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litig.,

978 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2013)......................................................................................... 6

In re Park W. Galleries, Inc., Litig.,

887 F. Supp. 2d 1385 (J.P.M.L. 2012)..................................................................................... 4, 7

In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.,

237 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2002)......................................................................................... 6

In re Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig.,

149 F. Supp. 2d 937 (J.P.M.L 2001)............................................................................................ 3

In re Pilot Flying J Fuel Rebate Contract Litig. (No. II,

11 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2014)........................................................................................... 7

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:2349 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:1477 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 16
iii

In re: Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

883 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2012)......................................................................................... 9

In re Profiler Prod. Liab. Litig.,

429 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2006)......................................................................................... 9

In re Refund Anticipation Loan Litig.,

856 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (J.P.M.L. 2012)....................................................................................... 11

In re Roadway Exp., Inc. Employment Practices Litig.,

384 F. Supp. 612 (J.P.M.L. 1974)................................................................................................ 8

In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Pricing Litig.,

528 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (J.P.M.L. 2007)......................................................................................... 7

In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig.,

883 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2012)....................................................................................... 11

In re Wireless Telephone Replacement Protection Programs Litig.,

180 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. U.S. 2002)................................................................................. 3

In re: Yasmin, Yaz (Drospirenone) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig.,

655 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (J.P.M.L. 2009)....................................................................................... 10

Jurincie v. AG Trucking, Inc.,

2005 WL 2663508 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2005)................................................................................ 9

Promuto v. Waste Mgmt., Inc.,

44 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)............................................................................................ 9

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1407................................................................................................................1, Passim

28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) ........................................................................................................................ 3

740 ILCS §14/1............................................................................................................................... 1

740 ILCS § 14/5(c) ......................................................................................................................... 9

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:2350 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:1478 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 16
1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff (hereinafter “Movant”) in the matter A.S. v. TikTok Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. 

Ill. 2020) respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of Movant’s motion pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer and consolidate the related actions in the Southern District of 

Illinois, the most logical and well-equipped District to address the overlapping class claims in each 

action, all of which have been brought on behalf of an Illinois class, under Illinois law. In the 

alternative, Movant suggests that the cases be consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois, 

where numerous related cases are currently pending.

All of these related actions allege that common defendants – namely TikTok Inc. and 

ByteDance Technology Inc. (the “Common Defendants”) – violated various data privacy laws, 

and specifically the Illinois Biometric Identification Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS §14/1, et 

seq., which prohibits, among other things, private entities from collecting, capturing, obtaining, 

disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating or profiting from the biometric identifiers or information 

of an individual without providing written notice and without obtaining a written release from the 

impacted individual or his authorized representative.

As alleged in the pending cases, the Common Defendants accomplished this privacy 

invasion via the immensely popular TikTok app (the “App”), a video-sharing social networking 

service used to create short videos, favored by children and teens. Specifically, the App uses 

proprietary facial recognition technology that scans every video uploaded to the App for faces, 

extracts geometric data relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric identifiers) of 

each face, and then uses that data to create and store a template of each face – all without ever 

informing anyone of this practice.

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:2351 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:1479 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 16
2

Because the App is largely targeted toward minors, with users in their teens making up 

nearly 40% of the App’s total users, most of the related actions assert claims for violation of the 

Illinois BIPA on behalf of a class of Illinois resident minors.

Movant filed Movant’s Complaint in the Southern District of Illinois on May 15, 2020. In 

addition to Movant’s action, four related cases have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois1

and five cases have been filed in in the Northern District of California.2 Thus, as of the date of this 

filing, an equal number of cases are pending in Illinois and California. 

Given the extensive overlap of the factual and legal issues involved, Movant respectfully 

suggests that the Related Actions should be centralized before one court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1407, and that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois is the most 

appropriate transferee forum. The BIPA is an Illinois law with no extraterritorial application to 

non-Illinois users of the App. Accordingly, in every Related Action, the Illinois statutory claims 

are designed to protect Illinois residents, and Illinois courts have by far the greatest interest in the

adjudication of these claims, whereas the only connection to California is the fact that the Common 

Defendants maintain a principal place of business there. Compared to Illinois, the Northern 

District of California has a negligible interest in adjudicating the claims of foreign residents under 

foreign law. While the California Actions also raise claims under California law, these claims are 

1

As set forth in the attached Schedule of Related Actions, the Illinois actions are: A.S. v. TikTok, 

Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. Ill.); E.R. v. TikTok, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-2810 (N.D. Ill.); Marks v. 

TikTok, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-2883 (N.D. Ill.); D.H. v. TikTok, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-2884 (N.D. Ill.); L.B. 

v. TikTok, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-2889 (N.D. Ill.) (collectively the “Illinois Actions”).

2 As set forth in the attached Schedule of Related Actions, the California actions are: Hong v. 

ByteDance, Inc., No. 5:19-cv-7792 (N.D. Cal.); R.S. et al. v. TikTok, Inc. et al., No. 5:20-CV-3212 

(N.D. Cal.); S.A. v. TikTok, Inc. et al., No. 5:20-cv-3294 (N.D. Cal.); P.S. et al v. TikTok, Inc. et 

al., No. 3:20-cv-2992 (N.D. Cal.); D.M. et al v. TikTok, Inc., at al., No. 3:20-CV-03185 (N.D. 

Cal.) (collectively the “California Actions”). All ten of the related cases, whether filed in Illinois 

or California, will be referenced as the “Related Actions.”

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:2352 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:1480 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 16
3

premised on the same invasive conduct that gives rise to the BIPA claims, and all of the Related 

Actions allege BIPA violations (often the sole claim).

Moreover, none of the California Actions has advanced to the point that concerns of 

judicial economy would outweigh that State’s inherent lack of interest in the class claims in 

dispute. The first-filed case in the Northern District of California, Misty Hong v. ByteDance, Inc., 

et al., 5:19-cv-07792 (N.D. Cal. 2019), has advanced little, if at all, since inception in late 

November 2019, with the defendants’ deadline to file a responsive pleading still more than a month 

away. See Misty Hong Docket, ECF Doc. No. 32 (Case Management Order, setting “Deadline to 

File Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion(s) to Dismiss” for June 25, 2020). 

Because Illinois is undoubtedly the center of gravity of this litigation, and because all 

Related Actions are in a similar state of procedural advancement, the Related Actions should be 

consolidated in the Southern District of Illinois. In the alternative, the Northern District of Illinois 

is also a suitable venue for consolidation and transfer.

ARGUMENT

I. Transfer and Consolidation in One District is Appropriate

28 U.S.C. § 1407 provides that “[w]hen civil actions involving one or more common 

questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district 

for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). This Panel shall order 

such transfer “upon its determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such 

actions.” Id. The Panel has previously ordered centralization of three or fewer cases. See In re 

Wireless Telephone Replacement Protection Programs Litig., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1382 

(J.P.M.L. 2002) (granting transfer and centralization of three consumer protection cases and 

determining that pending motions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge); In re 

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:2353 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:1481 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 16
4

Philadelphia Life Ins. Co. Sales Practices Litig., 149 F. Supp. 2d 937, 938 (J.P.M.L 2001) 

(granting transfer of two deceptive insurance sales cases and finding that such transfer would 

promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation).

Here, there are a multitude of cases with overlapping questions of law and fact among 

them, and the convenience of the parties and witnesses and considerations of judicial efficiency, 

all strongly favor transferring the Related Actions to the Southern District of Illinois for 

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A. The Related Actions Share Common Questions of Law and Fact.

In assessing the appropriateness of consolidation under Section 1407, the Panel looks to

the pleadings to determine the extent to which common questions of fact are present. Here, the 

Related Actions share common questions of law and fact since they allege comparable core 

allegations against primarily the same defendants based on common transactions and events. 

“Section 1407 does not,” however, “required a complete identity or even a majority of common 

factual issues as a prerequisite to centralization.” In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee 

Antitrust Litig., 24 F. Supp. 3d 1361, 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (quoting In re Park W. Galleries, Inc., 

Litig., 887 F. Supp. 2d 1385, 1385 (J.P.M.L. 2012)).

The individual complaints in the Related Actions involve many common questions of fact. 

In the Related Actions, the complaints largely focus on the same invasions of privacy, by the same 

defendants, through the same use of the App to capture, collect, and store scans of facial geometry 

from the same class. In comparing the allegations of the Related Actions, common questions 

abound, including, but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendants collected, captured and otherwise obtained the 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiffs and Class 

Members;

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:2354 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:1482 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 16
5

b. Whether Defendants possessed the biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information of Plaintiffs and Class Members;

c. Whether Defendants disclosed, redisclosed and otherwise disseminated the 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiffs and Class 

Members;

d. Whether Defendants profited from the biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information of Plaintiffs and Class Members;

e. Whether Defendants provided the notice required by BIPA before 

collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise 

disseminating the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of 

Plaintiffs and Class Members;

f. Whether Defendants obtained enforceable written releases from Plaintiff 

and Class Members or their authorized representatives before collecting, 

capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise disseminating 

the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information or Plaintiffs and 

Class Members;

g. Whether Defendants had in place – and disclosed to the public – the written 

retention and destruction policies required by BIPA while in possession of 

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information;

h. Whether Defendants protected Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information from disclosure using the 

reasonable standard of care within Defendants’ industry and in a manner 

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:2355 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:1483 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 16
6

that was the same as or more protective than the manner in which 

Defendants protects other confidential and sensitive information; 

i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered damages as a proximate 

result of Defendants; and

j. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages, equitable 

relief and other relief.

The overlap here is sufficient to merit transfer and coordination pursuant to Section 1407. See, 

e.g., In re Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1341 (J.P.M.L. 2018) (transfer 

was appropriate where actions commonly alleged that a conspiracy was effectuated by sharing 

competitively sensitive information); In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 237 F. 

Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2002) (to the extent non-common issues arise, transfer can have 

the “salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a 

pretrial program that [] allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed 

concurrently with discovery on common issues”).

Nor are the additional, non-BIPA class claims asserted in the California Actions grounds 

to reject the benefits consolidation will provide. As noted above, while only some of the Related 

Actions raise these additional claims, every single one of the Illinois and California Actions raises 

a claim under BIPA, and “[m]any MDLs [ ] encompass non-overlapping classes.” In re: N. Sea 

Brent Crude Oil Futures Litig., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2013); see also In re: Chrysler 

LLC 2.7 Liter V–6 Engine Oil Sludge Prods. Liab. Litig., 598 F.Supp.2d 1372 (J.P.M.L.2009)

(centralizing five non-overlapping putative statewide class actions); In re: Darvocet, Darvon & 

Propoxyphene Prod. Liab. Litig., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (“Transferee judges 

can accommodate common and individual discovery tracks, gaining the benefits of centralization 

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:2356 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:1484 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 16
7

without delaying or compromising consideration of claims on their individual merits”). The BIPA 

violations are the ties that bind this litigation and give rise to the need for consolidation. In re: 

Park West Galleries, Inc., Litig., 887 F.Supp.2d 1385, 1385 (J.P.M.L.2012) (“Section 1407 does 

not require a complete identity or even a majority of common factual issues as a prerequisite to 

centralization”). Here, the “common factual issues” are not simply a majority but an 

overwhelming majority of the issues in play, notwithstanding the additional causes of action 

asserted in the California Actions. In re Park W. Galleries, Inc., Litig., 887 F. Supp. 2d 1385 

(J.P.M.L. 2012) (“Discovery and other pretrial proceedings will focus on the same series of events. 

Pretrial motions likely will be similar in these actions”).

B. Transfer Will Promote Convenient, Just, and Efficient Litigation 

of the Related Actions

The Panel will order transfer where it would “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent 

inconsistent pre-trial rulings (particularly with respect to the issue of class certification); and 

conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.” In re U.S. Foodservice, Inc., 

Pricing Litig., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1371 (J.P.M.L. 2007). Because each action is based upon 

similar facts, plaintiffs in each of the Actions are, in turn, likely to seek overlapping discovery. See 

In re Auto Body Shop, 2014 WL 3908000, at *1-2 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (noting that transfer was 

appropriate to eliminate duplicative discovery when the actions shared a common factual core). 

Plaintiffs in the Related Actions necessarily will seek similar discovery from the Common 

Defendants to develop their common allegations and legal theories. The benefits to the Common 

Defendants are obvious as well, as they would not need to submit to repetitive and duplicative 

depositions, document discovery, discovery-related motion practice, and class certification 

briefing. See, e.g., In re Pilot Flying J Fuel Rebate Contract Litig. (No. II), 11 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:2357 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:1485 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 16
8

1352 (J.P.M.L. 2014); In re Fresh & Processed Potatoes Antitrust Litig., 744 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 

1382 (J.P.M.L. 2010).

That the Related Actions are putative class actions only strengthens the argument for 

transferring them for coordination or consolidation in a single forum. “The need to eliminate” the 

risk of inconsistent class certification rulings “presents a highly persuasive reason favoring transfer 

under Section 1407.” In re Roadway Exp., Inc. Employment Practices Litig., 384 F. Supp. 612, 

613 (J.P.M.L. 1974). See also In re Caterpillar, Inc., C13 & C15 Engine Prod. Liab. Litig., 26 F. 

Supp. 3d 1394, 1395 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (“Centralization will . . . prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings 

(particularly as to class certification) . . .”); In re Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. Overtime Pay Litig., 

416 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (ordering transfer “in order to eliminate duplicative 

discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification . . 

.”). In short, this is an ideal circumstance for a transfer order pursuant to Section 1407. 

II. The Southern District of Illinois is the Most Appropriate Forum

A review of the factors considered by the Panel in determining the most appropriate 

transferee court demonstrates that the Southern District of Illinois has several attributes which 

make that Court particularly appropriate here.

In enacting the BIPA, the Illinois General Assembly primarily concerned itself with the 

protection of the inherent privacy interests of Illinois residents, noting that: “[b]iometrics are 

unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For 

example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are 

biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, 

is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated 

transactions.” 740 ILCS § 14/5(c). While a handful of other states have begun enacting similar 

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:2358 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:1486 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 16
9

laws, Illinois is “the leader in the biometric privacy arena” and the BIPA is “the first and the oldest 

biometric regulation in the United States.”3

Illinois courts thus have a greater interest in seeing Illinois residents compensated for these 

intrusions, which were targeted at Illinois residents in Illinois, than California courts. Promuto v. 

Waste Mgmt., Inc., 44 F. Supp. 2d 628, 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“it is clear that New York has the 

greater interest in adjudicating a breach of warranty action where a foreign corporation sends 

representatives to New York in order to acquire a New York family-owned business. New York 

residents have a greater interest in seeing their fellow residents compensated for their losses”) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted); Jurincie v. AG Trucking, Inc., No. 05 C 4585, 2005 WL 

2663508, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2005) (“Indiana has a local interested [sic.] in adjudicating cases 

which involve significant bodily harm that occur on its own roadways”); Cf. In re Aircrash 

Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind. on Oct. 31, 1994, 948 F. Supp. 747, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (“Texas 

has no interest in the compensation granted to any injured person other than its own residents, or 

in seeing that liberal compensatory damages are imposed upon defendants whose principal place 

of business is in Texas”). 

The Panel has on several occasions found that the Southern District of Illinois to be an 

appropriate transferee forum. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors Corp. Dex-Cool Prod. Liab. Litig., 293 

F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2003); In re Profiler Prod. Liab. Litig., 429 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 

1382 (J.P.M.L. 2006); In re: Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate) Prod. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 

1355, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“We are presented with a number of attractive choices for transferee 

district, but we are persuaded that the Southern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee 

3 See https://www.natlawreview.com/article/anatomy-biometric-laws-what-us-companies-needto-know-2020 (last visited May 15, 2020).

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:2359 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:1487 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 16
10

district for this litigation”); In re: Yasmin, Yaz (Drospirenone) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prod. 

Liab. Litig., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1344 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (“We are persuaded that the Southern 

District of Illinois is an appropriate forum for this docket . . . provid[ing] a geographically central 

forum for this nationwide litigation in which actions are pending in various districts across the 

country”).

Notably, no judge in the Southern District is currently presiding over any MDL’s, 

compared to the Northern District of Illinois, home to 10 MDLS, and the Northern District of 

California, home to 20.4 Moreover, as of December 2019, the Southern District of Illinois has only 

2,117 civil cases pending, compared to 13,747 in the Northern District of Illinois and 10,642 in 

the Northern District of California.5 The Southern District of Illinois is thus in the best position to 

move these consolidated proceedings forward through the pre-trial phase in the most expeditious 

fashion.

III. In the Alternative, the Northern District of Illinois is a Suitable Forum

Absent consolidation in the Southern District of Illinois, transfer of the Related Actions to 

the Northern District of Illinois is a sensible alternative. Each of the arguments above as to the 

center of gravity of this litigation apply to the Northern District of Illinois as well, and its judges 

are the most experienced in the country at adjudicating BIPA class actions. The Panel has long4

See https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-May15-2020.pdf (last visited May 15, 2020).

5

See https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/c-1/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary/2019/12/31 

(last visited May 15, 2020).

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:2360 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:1488 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 16
11

recognized both that there is “something to be said for the convenience of a geographically central 

forum,”6 and also that the “Northern District of Illinois is a convenient, central forum.”7

Additionally, while the Northern District of California currently has 20 pending MDLs and 

only 16 Article III judges, the Northern District of Illinois has 10 pending MDLs and 29 Article 

III judges,8 making the Northern District of Illinois a more attractive alternative option than the 

Northern District of California. For example, Judge Lucy Koh, assigned to the Misty Hong action, 

is already overseeing two active MDLs, one of which is a sprawling antitrust action.9 

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Movant respectfully requests that the Panel centralize the Related 

Actions as well as any tag-along actions or other cases, such as may be subsequently filed in federal 

court asserting related or similar claims, in the United Stated District Court for the Southern 

6

In re Multidistrict Private Civil Treble Damage Litigation Involving Library Editions of 

Children’s Books, MDL Nos. 2, 5, 6 & 7, 297 F. Supp. 385, 387 (J.P.M.L. 1968) (MDL transfer 

to Northern District of Illinois).

7

In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (MDL transfer to 

Northern District of Illinois). See also In re Refund Anticipation Loan Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 

1336, 1337 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (Northern District of Illinois is “convenient and centrally located”); 

In re Capital One Tel. Consumer Prot. Act Litig., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1368 (J.P.M.L. 2012) 

(“Northern District of Illinois offers a relatively central and convenient forum for the involved 

parties and counsel”); In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1352 

(J.P.M.L. 2012) (Northern District of Illinois “provides a convenient and accessible forum for this 

litigation in which actions have been filed throughout the country regarding a product marketed 

nationwide”); In re Ameriquest Mortg. Co. Mortg. Lending Practices Litig., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 

1355 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (Northern District of Illinois a “geographically central district will be a 

convenient location for a litigation already nationwide in scope”); In re McDonald’s Corp. 

Promotional Games Litig., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2002) (Northern District of 

Illinois is a “geographically central district [and] will be a convenient location for a litigation 

already nationwide in scope”). 

8 https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_distprofile1231.2019.pdf

(last visited May 15, 2020).

9 MDL No. 2752 In Re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation; MDL-2773 In 

Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation.

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:2361 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:1489 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 16
12

District of Illinois. In the alternative, Movant requests that the Actions be consolidated in the 

Northern District of Illinois before one of the four judges assigned to a Related Action there.

DATED: May 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr. 

Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr.

Law Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr. 

3518A Arsenal Street

Saint Louis, Missouri 63118 

Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com 

 francisflynn@gmail.com

Tiffany M. Yiatras

CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC

8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100

Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643

Email: tyiatras@gmail.com

Plaintiffs’ Counsel in A.S. v. TikTok Inc., 

No. 3:20-cv-00457 (S.D. Ill.)

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:2362 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:1490 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-1 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 16
Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

MDL - ___________

In re: IN RE TIKTOK INC. DATA PRIVACY LITIGATION

SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS

Case Name District Court 

and Division

Civil Action No. Assigned Judge

ILLINOIS ACTIONS

A.S. v. Tiktok Inc., et al.

Plaintiff:

A.S., a Minor, through 

Guardian, A.S.

Defendants:

TikTok Inc.

ByteDance Inc.

Southern 

District of 

Illinois (East St. 

Louis)

3:20-cv-00457

E.R. v. TikTok, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff:

E.R., a Minor, through her 

Guardian, L.H.

Defendant:

TikTok, Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

Illinois 

(Chicago)

1:20-cv-2810 Judge John Z. Lee

K.M. v. TikTok Inc., et al.

Plaintiff:

Northern 

District of 

Illinois 

(Chicago)

1:20-cv-2883 Judge Charles P. 

Kocoras

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:2363 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:1491 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 5
K.M., a Minor, through her 

Guardian, C.M.

Defendants:

TikTok, Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

D.H. v. TikTok, Inc.

Plaintiff:

D.M., a minor, through her 

Guardian, D.H.

Defendants:

TikTok, Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

Illinois 

(Chicago)

1:20-cv-2884 Judge John F. Kness

L.B. v. TikTok, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff:

L.B., a minor, by and 

through his or her legal 

guardian, MOLLY JANIK

Defendants:

TikTok, Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

Illinois 

(Chicago)

1:20-cv-2889 Judge Steven C. 

Seeger

CALIFORNIA ACTIONS

Hong v. ByteDance, Inc., et 

al. 

Plaintiff: 

MISTY HONG, 

Minor A.S., through her

Northern 

District of 

California (San 

Jose)

5:19-cv-7792 Judge Lucy H. Koh

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:2364 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:1492 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 5
mother and legal guardian 

LAUREL

SLOTHOWER,

Minor A.R., through her

mother and legal guardian 

GILDA AVILA,

MEGHAN SMITH, 

Minors C.W. and I.W.,

through their mother and 

legal guardian

MIKHAILA WOODALL,

Minor R.P.,

through her mother and 

legal guardian

LYNN PAVALON 

Defendants:

ByteDance, Inc.,

TikTok, Inc.

Beijing ByteDance

Technology Co., Td.

MUSICAL.LY

R.S. et al. v. TikTok, Inc. et 

al.

Plaintiffs:

R.S. and J.S., through their 

guardian

Defendants:

TikTok Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

California (San 

Jose)

5:20-CV-3212 Magistrate Judge 

Susan van Keulen

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:2365 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:1493 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 5
S.A. v. TikTok, Inc. et al.

Plaintiff:

S.A., a minor, by and 

through his mother

and guardian, Maritza A.

Defendants:

TikTok, Inc. and 

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

California (San 

Jose)

5:20-cv-3294 Judge Nathanael M. 

Cousins

P.S. et al v. TikTok, Inc. et 

al.

Plaintiffs:

P. S., a minor, by and 

through her Guardian, 

Cherise Slate

M. T. W., a minor, by and 

through her Guardian, 

Brenda Washington

Defendant:

TikTok, Inc. and 

ByteDance, Inc.

Northern 

District of 

California (San 

Francisco)

3:20-cv-2992 Judge William H. 

Orrick

D.M. et al v. TikTok, Inc., 

at al.

Plaintiffs: 

D.M. And A.M., Minors, 

By and Through Their 

Guardian, Porchia 

Heidelberg, 

A.O., A Minor, By and 

Through His Guardian, 

Jasmin Beverly, 

Northern 

District of 

California (San 

Francisco)

3:20-CV-03185 Magistrate Judge 

Laurel Beeler

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:2366 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:1494 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 5
M.P., A Minor, By And 

Through Her Guardian, 

Requeenis Gilder

Defendants:

TikTok, Inc.

ByteDance, Inc.

Case: 1:19-cv-07915 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:2367 Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 59-9 Filed: 09/09/20 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:1495 Case MDL No. 2948 Document 1-2 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 5