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-cv-4699 

Judge John Z. Lee

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO EDELSON PC’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this opposition to Edelson PC’s (“Edelson”) motion to 

Vacate or Modify Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 166).

I. INTRODUCTION

Edelson’s motion to vacate or modify the preliminary injunction in the Preliminary 

Approval Order1 should be denied for several reasons.

First, the injunction applies only to class members. Edelson, as counsel of record in this 

case, is not one. That alone is dispositive.

Second, by its plain terms and design, the injunction does not apply to the arbitration at 

issue. That arbitration does not relate to the claims or facts “giving rise to” this action. And no 

party with standing to enforce the preliminary injunction has ever taken the position that it does.

1 Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (ECF No. 162)

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:3200
2 

In contravention of this Court’s standing order,2 Edelson did not contact Class Counsel or 

Defendants’ Counsel before filing its motion. Had Edelson done so, the parties would have 

unanimously agreed that the injunction does not apply to the unrelated arbitration, obviating the 

need for any motion practice. 

Thus, the entire motion appears to have been manufactured solely for the purpose of

publicly airing accusations about an otherwise-confidential arbitration—one that has nothing to do 

with the real parties in interest here or the settlement. The motion should therefore be denied as 

moot and in violation of the Court’s standing order. 

Third, Edelson’s motion should be denied because Edelson lacks standing to challenge the 

preliminary injunction. Edelson is not a class member, nor was it aggrieved by the injunction. 

Finally, the preliminary injunction is, as Edelson concedes, a common feature in class 

action settlements. Unlike the injunction underlying the authority cited by Edelson, the preliminary 

injunction here enjoins only those who choose to be enjoined and allows any others to opt out and 

pursue other proceedings. It is proper and there is no reason to vacate or modify it, let alone to do 

so to at the request of a law firm that is neither a class member nor a party to an enjoined 

proceeding. 

II. RELEVANT PROVISIONS

The Preliminary Approval Order provided in pertinent part: 

Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be 

approved, all Settlement Class Members are preliminarily enjoined 

unless and until they have timely and properly excluded themselves

from the Settlement Class from (i) filing, commencing, prosecuting, 

intervening in or participating as plaintiff, claimant or class member 

in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration or 

2 See Procedures to be followed in cases assigned to Judge John Z. Lee, Court website (“Before 

filing a motion, the movant’s counsel must ask opposing counsel whether there is an objection to 

the motion.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:3201
3 

other proceeding in any jurisdiction 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.... 

Preliminary Approval Order, ¶ 21. 

“Released Claims” include those “arising from or related to the Civil Actions or the 

collection and use of any user data, including biometric data . . . that were, could have been, or 

could be asserted by the Releasing Parties.” Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement 

Agreement”), ECF No. 122-1, ¶ 2.30. See also Preliminary Approval Order, p. 1 (“unless 

otherwise defined, all terms herein have the same meanings as set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement”).

Settlement Class is defined as “all persons who are members of the Nationwide Class 

and/or Illinois Subclass” and excludes “all Class Counsel and counsel of record in the 

Civil Actions.” Preliminary Approval Order, ¶ 2. See also Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.6 

(“‘Class Member’ means any person who qualifies under the definition of the Class, 

excluding . . . all Class Counsel and counsel of record in the Civil Actions.”); ¶ 2.4 (“‘Class’ 

means all persons who are members of the Nationwide Class and/or Illinois Subclass. . . .”); 

and ¶¶ 2.17 and 2.19 (defining Nationwide Class and Illinois Subclass).

“‘Civil Actions’ mean all of the civil actions that have been, will be, or could be 

initiated relating to the allegations or subject matter at issue in any pleading filed in any 

action that is included in or related to In Re: TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, 

MDL No. 2948.” Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.3. 

Releasing Parties include the defendants, class representatives, and class members. 

Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 2.11, 2.26. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3202
4 

III. ARGUMENT

Edelson’s motion should be rejected. Edelson is not subject to the preliminary injunction, 

the arbitration is not subject to the preliminary injunction, Edelson lacks standing to challenge the 

preliminary injunction, and the preliminary injunction is proper.

A. Edelson is not enjoined because it is not a class member.

The Preliminary Approval Order defined the Settlement Classes, and expressly excluded 

from the definition “all Class Counsel and counsel of record in the Civil Actions.” Preliminary 

Approval Order, ¶ 2. See also Settlement Agreement, ¶ 2.6. 

Edelson is counsel of record in the civil actions. E.g., ECF Nos. 125 and 128 (notices of 

appearance); Mot. at 2. Accordingly, Edelson is not a Settlement Class Member. 

Because Edelson is not a Settlement Class Member, the preliminary injunction does not 

enjoin it. See ECF No. 162, ¶ 21 (“...all Settlement Class Members are preliminarily enjoined 

unless...”) (emphasis added). For this reason alone, Edelson’s motion should be denied.

B. The arbitration is not enjoined because it is not “related to” or “arising

from” the action or its underlying facts.

Nothing in Edelson’s motion suggests that the arbitration is enjoined by the preliminary 

injunction. None of the defendants or their counsel is a party to the arbitration. None of the class 

representatives or their counsel is a party to the arbitration. Nothing in the motion suggests that 

the arbitration is related to TikTok’s collection or use of user data at all. The injunction simply 

does not apply to the arbitration.

The injunction does not, as Edelson contends, enjoin any action “even conceivably related 

to the issues in this case.” Mot. at 5, 6. (Even if it did, it would be an untenable stretch to suggest 

the arbitration relates to the “issues” in this case). The injunction is limited to those actions “based 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:3203
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:3204
6 

C. Edelson lacks standing to challenge the preliminary injunction. 

The preliminary injunction does not apply at all to Edelson, let alone to its unrelated 

arbitration. Nevertheless, after several pages of irrelevant and imaginative claims regarding one of 

class counsel, Edelson ultimately contends that the preliminary injunction is improper and should 

be vacated or modified to accommodate Edelson. Edelson lacks standing to make that challenge.

To have standing to challenge the preliminary injunction, Edelson must be both a class 

member and aggrieved by the injunction. See Douglas v. W. Union Co., 955 F.3d 662, 665 (7th 

Cir. 2020) (non-class member lacks standing and cannot be aggrieved by settlement-related 

rulings); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litig., 332 F.R.D. 202, 219 (N.D. Ill. 

2019) (Lee, J.) (those who are not class members or who have opted out lack standing to object to 

a settlement); Broomfield v. Craft Brew All., Inc., No. 17-cv-01027, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74801, 

at *61 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) (“Objectors must establish Article III standing to object, which 

requires an injury . . . that is redressable . . . . In the class action context, ‘the objecting class 

member must be ‘aggrieved by the [settlement provision].’”) (citations omitted); Shah v. Zimmer 

Biomet Holdings, No. 3:16-cv-815, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171925, at *25 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 18, 

2020) (overruling objection of non-class member for lack of standing and lack of merit); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(e)(5) (only class members may object to settlements).

Edelson is neither a class member nor is it aggrieved. Supra. It thus lacks standing to 

challenge the preliminary injunction, and its motion should be denied for this reason, too.

D. The preliminary injunction is an appropriate and common class settlement 

provision. 

As Edelson concedes in its motion, the preliminary injunction included in the Preliminary 

Approval Order is “a relatively common feature in class action settlements.” Mot. at 7. The 

Seventh Circuit has held that district courts presiding over MDL proceedings may “issu[e] 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:3205
7 

injunctions [against parallel proceedings] to protect the integrity of their rulings, including pretrial rulings like discovery orders, as long as the injunctions are narrowly crafted to prevent specific 

abuses which threaten the court’s ability to manage the litigation effectively and responsibly.” 

Winkler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 101 F.3d 1196, 1203 (7th Cir. 1996). “Where a litigant’s success in a 

parallel state court action would make a nullity of the district court’s ruling, and render ineffective 

its efforts effectively to manage the complex litigation at hand, injunctive relief is proper.” Id. at 

1202. 

Accordingly, courts in this District routinely enter injunctions to prevent class members 

from instigating parallel litigation unless or until they have opted out of a class settlement. See, 

e.g., T.K., et al v. Bytedance Tech. Co., Ltd, No. 19-07915, ECF No. 13, ¶ 16 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 

2019); Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-1061, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162876, at *19 

(N.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2019). In fact, attached is a chart listing an additional 32 preliminary approval 

orders from the Northern District of Illinois that include such injunctions, along with the text of 

those injunctions. Exhibit A.

Notably, all of these injunctions post-date the Adkins case cited by Edelson. Adkins v. 

Nestlé Purina Petcare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 482 (7th Cir. 2015). Indeed, Adkinsis inapposite because 

the injunction there stayed an existing parallel state court class action that had been pending for 

two years and was certified before the federal action, even though the class member who brought 

that state action wanted to opt out of the federal settlement and continue to proceed in state court. 

Specifically, the injunction read:

This Order bars and enjoins all Settlement Class Members from 

commencing or prosecuting any action asserting any Released 

Claims, and stays any actions or proceedings brought by any 

Member of the Settlement Class asserting any Released Claims as 

of three (3) days after the date of this Order.

Adkins v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Co., No. 12-02871, ECF No. 195, ¶¶ 22 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2014).

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:3206
8 

In contrast, here, the injunction is voluntary: class members can choose to opt out of the 

class action and pursue their own separate actions or they can choose to be bound by the Settlement 

and the injunction that goes with it. As this Court recognized in granting preliminary approval to 

the settlement, the preliminary injunction here does not seek “to enjoin a class member, who had 

sought to opt out, from arbitrating its claim before the settlement was finally approved.” ECF No. 

161, p. 32. It only enjoins those who choose to be enjoined and to not opt out. 

The routine injunction in the Preliminary Approval Order is appropriate, and Edelson’s 

motion should be denied for this additional reason. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Edelson’s motion should be denied.

Dated: December 7, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

 

By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Fegan 

Elizabeth A. Fegan

FEGAN SCOTT LLC

150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Ph: 312.741.1019 

Fax: 312.264.0100

beth@feganscott.com 

By: /s/ Katrina Carroll

Katrina Carroll

CARLSON LYNCH, LLP

111 W. Washington St.

Suite 1240

Chicago IL 60602

312.750.1265 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

By: /s/ Ekwan Rhow 

Ekwan Rhow

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, 

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, 

P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:3207
9 

(310) 201-2100 

erhow@birdmarella.com

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

Jonathan Jagher 

Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC

923 Fayette Street

Conshohocken, PA 19428

(610) 234-6487 

jjagher@fklmlaw.com

Michael Gervais 

Susman Godfrey LLP

1900 Avenue of the Stars

Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 789-3100 

mgervais@susmangodfrey.com 

Albert Y. Chang 

Bottini & Bottini, Inc. 

7817 Ivanhoe Avenue 

Suite 102 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

(858) 914-2001 

achang@bottinilaw.com 

Megan E. Jones 

Hausfeld LLP 

1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 540-7200 

mjones@hausfledllp.com 

Amanda K. Klevorn 

Burns Charest LLP 

365 Canal Street 

Suite 1170 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

(504) 799-2845 

aklevorn@burnscharest.com 

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee

Shannon Marie McNulty

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:3208
10 

Clifford Law Offices, P.C.

120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 899-9090 

smm@cliffordlaw.com 

Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 175 Filed: 12/07/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:3209