1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC.,

CONSUMER PRIVACY

LITIGATION,

This document relates to all cases

MDL No. 2948

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699

Judge John Z. Lee

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

CLASS MEMBER EDELSON PC’S REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Unable to justify the propriety or breadth of the injunction under either Rule 65 or 

Seventh Circuit precedent, Class Counsel (with the support of TikTok) offer a handful of

arguments as to why the injunction should remain in effect and unmodified. None are remotely 

persuasive. First, Edelson PC (“Edelson”) is not excluded from being a Class Member because it 

has never been, nor could be, “counsel of record” pursuant to this Court’s local rules. Next, Class 

Counsel claim the broad injunction doesn’t actually cover anything beyond disputes about 

“TikTok’s collection or use of data.” But Class Counsel’s post hoc view of what the injunction 

covers—based solely by reference to outside documents—conflicts with what the broad 

language of who the injunction covers, what the injunction prohibits, and what has transpired in 

the arbitration. Finally, both Rule 65 and Adkins clearly prohibit the issuance of an injunction, 

without clear findings of fact and law showing why it was issued and what it covers. It is 

uncontested that the requirements for the entry of a preliminary injunction were not met. The 

injunction should be vacated and if Class Counsel and TikTok want to attempt justify a new 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:3248
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3249
3

Illinois, but not the trial bar, and should know that under Local Rule 83.16(c) appearances by 

firms are prohibited.”); Reddick v. Bloomingdale Police Officers, No. 96 C 1109, 2003 WL 

1733560, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2003) (“Under Local Rule 83.16(c) of the Northern District 

of Illinois, only individual attorneys, not law firms, are permitted to appear on behalf of 

parties.”) As a Class Member, Edelson is “aggrieved” by being forced to risk contempt of court 

(and payment of fees to an adverse party) based on injunction that on its face appears to cover its 

ongoing arbitration. Given the steps Ms. Carroll had already taken in response to Edelson 

attorneys representing a client in an objection to the settlement, it seemed certain she would use 

the injunction to into that conduct. (See Declaration of Jay Edelson, attached at 

Exhibit A.) 

II. Edelson’s Counterclaims and in the Arbitration 

Arise from and are related to its Client’s Objection to the Released Claims in

this Case 

Next, Class Counsel argues that despite the expansive language of the injunction, it only 

covers disputes about “TikTok’s collection or use of data” and not any aspect of the arbitration.

But Class Counsel’s stated limitation on the injunction is based on a series of cross-referencing 

definitions contained in their settlement agreement, not the injunction. (Dkt. 175 at 2-3.) Rule 65 

prohibits the reference to outside documents to prevent the type of verbal gymnastics Class 

Counsel use to recast their injunction as being narrower than the terms suggest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

65(d)(1)(C) (requiring an injunction to “describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the 

complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.”) The injunction should be 

vacated or modified on that basis alone.

But Class Counsel’s only argument around the expansive language of the injunction 

entered by the Court is to cast doubt on the claims at issue in the arbitration. This Court enjoined 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3250
4

all class members from “participating . . . in any . . . arbitration . . . based on relating to or arising 

out of the claims and causes of action or the facts and circumstances giving rise to the Action 

and/or the Released Claims.” (Dkt. 162 at ¶ 21.) As demonstrated above, Edelson is a Class 

Member, it is in an arbitration, and that arbitration includes several issues related to the released 

claims. If Class Counsel and TikTok wanted a narrower injunction that only covers claims 

against TikTok related to its data collection it could have easily written such an injunction. They 

didn’t and can’t now claim to narrow the sweeping injunction entered by the Court.

Instead, Class Counsel responds by calling Edelson’s claims about the arbitration an 

“attenuated,” “unfounded,” “unsworn2 and unsupported story” containing “grossly distorted ad 

hominin attacks” that are “objectively untrue.” Contrary to their list of adjectives and the 

declarations purportedly supporting them, Edelson’s “narrative” is well-supported. (See 

generally Edelson Decl.)

Edelson’s counterclaims 

2 Without a hint of irony, Ms. Carroll’s declaration which claims Edelson’s motion lacks 

“factual support” is comprised of roughly half hearsay statements of her husband. (Dkt. 175-2 ¶¶ 

6, 8-14.) See Fed. R. Evid. 802. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:3251
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:3252
6

injunction in this case was never discussed at either preliminary approval hearing, no reason was 

presented in the order as to why it was issued, no legal standard was identified, no findings of 

fact or law were made, no likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm was found, and 

no equities were weighed. See Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 

2015); see also In re Jimmy John’s Overtime Litig., 877 F.3d 756, 769 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Here, 

plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the traditional 

factors for granting an injunction and failing to make the requisite findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. We agree.”) The absence of these findings is fatal and the injunction should 

be vacated.

Class Counsel and TikTok offer no real response for this failure. Instead, they attempt to 

justify their sneaking a preliminary injunction into a counsel-drafted order by pointing to 34 

other instances where they say similar injunctions were included in preliminary approval orders. 

(See dkt. 175-1.) But “everybody does it” isn’t a defense for submitting to the Court a proposed 

order that contains a provision that plainly violates Rule 65 and binding precedent. See In re

White Crane Trading Co., Inc., 170 B.R. 694, 705 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1994) (“A party should 

never present a court with a proposed order that would authorize the impermissible.”)3

It’s also not the case that courts in this district routinely enter such orders without 

question, as Class Counsel suggests. For a recent example, consider Hill v. Mercy Health System 

Corp., No. 20cv50286, 2021 WL 5832787 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 24, 2021). There plaintiffs’ counsel 

submitted a proposed order that, like the one in this case, contained an injunction that had not 

been previously raised or supported in any manner. Id. The district court, sua sponte, questioned 

3 In fact, the chart submitted further demonstrates their misunderstanding of the issue given 

it doesn’t include whether the requisite oral or written findings were made justifying the issuance 

of the injunctions listed.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:3253
7

its authority to enter such an injunction. After rejecting various belated excuses offered by the 

parties—including a list of other cases where an injunction had been entered as part of the 

preliminary approval of a class action—the court refused to enter the order containing the 

preliminary injunction. Id. at *2. (“The parties have provided no legal bases for that request nor 

any facts upon which a proper injunction could be entered.”)

Finally, Class Counsel claim that Adkins can be ignored because the injunction there 

didn’t allow members of a class certified in state court before the settlement of the federal action 

to opt out. The ability to opt out had absolutely nothing to do with the Court’s ruling about the 

whether the district court erred in entering the injunction without providing the required findings. 

Hill, 2021 WL 5832787 at *2-3.

Accordingly, Edelson’s motion to vacate or modify the injunction should be granted. 

Respectfully submitted,

EDELSON PC,

Date: December 14, 2021 /s/Ryan D. Andrews

Jay Edelson

jedelson@edelson.com

Ryan D. Andrews

randrews@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 179 Filed: 12/14/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:3254