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.

1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules

1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

2 TikTok, Inc., ByteDance Inc., Beijing Bytedance Technology Co. Ltd., and

Musical.ly.

3

In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel

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.

FILED: 08/12/2020

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani 

Lead case Number: 1:20-cv-04699 
-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 R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry Nathaniel M. Gorton

Matthew F. Kennelly David C. Norton

4 Specifically, in their response, defendants state that they “equally” support

centralization in either the Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of California. Defs.’

Joint Response at 1 (ECF No. 30).
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

1:20-cv-04723

P.S., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-02992

1:20-cv-04724

D.M., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03185

1:20-cv-04725

R.S., ET AL. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03212 

1:20-cv-04728

S.A. v. TIKTOK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-03294 

1:20-cv-04729

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

1:20-cv-04731