1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

 

MARK S.’s REPLY IN SUPPORT OF INITIAL OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Objector Mark S. files this reply in support of his Initial Objections to Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Initial Objections”) (Dkt. 126) for the 

limited purpose of clarifying and updating the Court on an issue it raised during the preliminary 

approval hearing – namely, the relationship between T.K. v. ByteDance Tech. Co., Ltd. (“T.K.”), 

No. 1:19-cv-7915 (N.D. Ill.), and this matter (the “MDL”). See Dkt. 138-5 at 31:18-24.1 In his 

Initial Objections, Mark S. stated that: (a) the court in T.K. preliminarily enjoined T.K. settlement 

class members from bringing any new class actions or amending an existing class action to assert 

any claim arising out of or related to T.K. or the subject matter of the T.K. complaint; and (b) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel in the MDL did not amend their class allegations to include T.K. class 

members until the objection process in T.K. – well after the preliminary injunction was entered. 

Dkt. 126 at 5-6. Mark S. also advised this Court of his pending motion in T.K. to enforce the 

preliminary injunction, which details the alleged preliminary injunction violations by T.K. class 

members who pursued claims in the MDL (“Minor Class Representatives”). Id. at 6; see also 

Dkt. 59 (attaching Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction).

1 Citations to docketed entries are to the CM/ECF-stamped page numbers.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 157 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:3032
2

The court in T.K. has not yet ruled on the motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. 

However, on April 14, 2021 – after the Initial Objections and this Court’s preliminary approval 

hearing, the court in T.K. noted in a Minute Order that “certain claims within the [MDL] may fall 

within the scope of the Proposed Settlement’s release clause . . . and the associated preliminary 

injunction entered by this Court . . . .” T.K. Dkt. 65. The court set a status hearing on April 21, 

2021 to discuss “case overlap, the nature of any revised injunctive relief, and a reasonable 

procedure for moving the case forward (including whether the parties have any agreement or 

wish to revise the release clause to exclude claims in [the MDL].” Id.

Neither in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (Dkt. 137) nor at the preliminary approval 

hearing (Dkt. 138-5 (hearing transcript)) did the Minor Class Representatives acknowledge or 

address through their counsel their seeming violation of the T.K. preliminary injunction. The 

omission is not academic. 

As Defendants first revealed in their supplemental memorandum (Dkt. 139), defense 

counsel made it known during MDL settlement negotiations that they believed that T.K. class 

members were enjoined from pursuing claims in the MDL. See id. at 4-5. Saddled with the very 

real possibility that they violated the T.K. preliminary injunction, the Minor Class 

Representatives and their counsel necessarily were in a weakened and conflicted position

throughout the MDL settlement negotiations – i.e., if they did not reach a settlement, they might 

have to litigate their seeming injunction violation – a fact unique to the putative representatives.

From that weakened and conflicted position, and without obtaining independent representation 

for the Minor Subclass, counsel for the Minor Class Representatives agreed to a settlement that 

did not take into account the unique strengths of the Minor Subclass’ claims or the unique 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 157 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:3033
3

interests of the Minor Subclass, as described in the Initial Objections. See Dkt. 126 at 7-9.

Notably, even if the court in T.K. modifies the preliminary injunction at some future date, the 

facts and conflict underlying the proposed MDL settlement will remain the same.

During the preliminary approval hearing, the Court observed that the majority of putative 

class representatives are minors who are being represented by their guardians and parents and 

asked counsel for Objector Mark S. whether it is “reasonable to believe that the attorneys who 

are representing those minor class representatives espoused . . . or advocated their interests as 

part of this settlement process.” See Dkt. 138-5 at 29:1-10. Mark S. respectfully submits that the 

above-described facts and conflict precluded the attorneys representing the Minor Class 

Representatives from effectively advocating on behalf of the entire Minor Subclass – as the 

proposed settlement reveals.2

In conclusion, and without waiving his other objections, for the reasons set forth herein

and in his Initial Objections, Mark S. respectfully submits that the proposed settlement fails to 

satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirement.

Dated: April 16, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

MARK S.

By: /s/ Scott R. Drury

SCOTT R. DRURY

Mike Kanovitz

Scott R. Drury

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

(312) 243-5900

drury@loevy.com

2 At the hearing, counsel for Mark S. stated, inter alia, that regardless of the fact that minors are named 

plaintiffs, under Supreme Court precedent, “a conflict arises when the interests of those that are in a 

single class are not aligned,” as is the case here. Id. at 29:16-23 (referencing Amchem Prod. v. Windsor, 

521 U.S. 591 (1997)).

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 157 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3034
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Scott R. Drury, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 16, 2021, I filed the foregoing 

document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Scott R. Drury

One of the attorneys for Mark S.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 157 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:3035