1 

February 7, 2022

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

Eastern Division

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60604

Submitted Electronically Per General Order 21-0027 via ECF at

Temporary_E-Filing@ilnd.uscourts.gov

RE: TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation

MDL No. 2948

20-cv-4699

Supplemental Evidence in Support of Objection and Notice of Intention

To Appear at Fairness Hearing

Dear Judge Lee:

One day after I filed my objection to the proposed settlement, the settling parties 

altered the Settlement Website without Court permission.

1 This was done to “fix” a serious due 

process problem raised in my objection concerning Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig. v. 

Mercury Interactive Corp., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2010).2 

Based on screenshots from the Internet Archive3, Class counsel’s alternation of the 

Settlement Website objection instructions occurred on January 25, 2022. The alteration 

modified the objection instruction as follows: 

1 I respectfully request leave of Court to submit this letter. 

2 After I filed my objection, two other Objectors presented similar arguments. However, the 

“fix” compounded the underlying problem, which should not have occurred in the first place.

3 The Internet Archive is an American digital library with the stated mission of “universal access 

to all knowledge.” It provides free public access to collections of digitized materials, including 

websites, software applications/games, music, movies/videos, moving images, and millions of 

books. In addition to its archiving function, the Archive is an activist organization, advocating a 

free and open Internet. As of December 2021, the Internet Archive holds over 34 million books 

and texts, 7.4 million movies, videos and TV shows, 797,000 software programs, 13,991,923 

audio files, 4.1 million images, and 640 billion web pages in the Wayback Machine. 

FILED

2/7/2022

CLERTHO M

K, U.S. DISTRICT CO S G. BRUTON URT

DB

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:3397
2

“Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. Deadline: January 

31, 2022 

Deadline for responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees: April 14, 2022” 

See, Screenshots from Internet Archive dated January 25, 2022; January 

29, 2022; and February 5, 2022 (emphasis added to reflect the newly 

included language).

The original instruction which the Court preliminarily approved (and was reflected on 

the Settlement Website from November 15, 2021, to January 24, 2022, and in the written 

Notice) reflected:

“Write to the Court if you do not like the Settlement. Deadline: January

31, 2022” 

See, Screenshots from Internet Archive dated stamped November 15; 

January 1, 2022; January 12, 2022; January 16, 2022; January 21, 2022; 

January 23, 2022; and January 24, 2022; Notice, p. 1. 

To be clear, the deadline for responses to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval and 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees: April 14, 2022, was not disclosed to the Class prior to January 25, 

2022. Pursuant to § 15 of the Notice, Class members are informed Class counsel may seek fees 

to be awarded by the Court. However, class members are not informed of their right to object 

or otherwise “respond” to the application after it is filed. 

Attached are screenshots of the Settlement Website which confirm the content of the 

alteration and its timing.4

If this alteration was a correction made with or without Court approval, it was just six 

days prior to the objection deadline. It was substantially after notice was first widely 

distributed directly to the class. Most class members surely missed the new information.

If this alteration is a revision or augmentation to the objection procedure, it is untimely, 

misleading and confusing. It is also inconsistent with the Preliminary Approval Order, 

4 These screenshots should not be disputed. They are derived from the Internet Archive. As of 

February 7, 2022, the Internet Archive reflects 146 captures from the Settlement Website 

between November 15, 2021, and February 5, 2022. A capture is a digital image of the website.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:3398
3 

Settlement Agreement and Notice. See, e.g., Settlement Agreement, §§ 11.1-11.8 [objection 

procedures]; § 13.1 [fees]; Preliminary Approval Order, ¶¶ 6 – 8. 

It is unclear from where the so-called “response” date was derived. The hearing date is 

May 18, 2022. Generally, opposition affidavits, would be due seven days before the hearing. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 6 (c)(2). Moreover, this Court’s Standing Order specifies that 

“Briefing schedules are generally set by Court order.” Standing Order Memorandum. After the 

filing of the moving papers on March 31, 2022, there is no briefing schedule set by the 

Preliminary Approval Order. 

Moreover, it is plain the Preliminary Approval Order does not contemplate any response

from Class members. See, e.g., Preliminary Approval Order, ¶¶ 8-9. 

Arguendo, for example, the newly altered objection instruction is, in fact, accurate and 

authorized, then class members were not informed prior thereto (e.g., from November 15, 

2021, to January 24, 2022) that they had a separate right to “respond” to any fee application

sought by Class counsel. This is a monumental omission.

It is unclear how, if at all, it affects, if it does, the objection deadline or whether it 

constitutes an extension. Preliminary Approval Order, ¶ 7 seems to foreclose any extension, 

making the alteration, ambiguous and potentially misleading. See, Molski v. Gleich 318 F.3d 

937 (9th Cir. 2003)[a class settlement notice that is misleading violates due process].

On the other hand, if this was only a notification to those class members who filed 

objections, it is mystifying why class counsel simply did not tell them. 

Regrettably, it appears the Settlement Website may have been altered in the misplaced 

hope the timing for the alteration would be missed; and it would always appear that class 

members knew, early on, that an opportunity for a response, may remain open. But, even if 

this is the case, none of this would square with the objection procedure reflected in the 

Preliminary Approval Order, which plainly requires objections are filed on or before January 31, 

2022, and not on some sort of ad hoc rolling basis.

Whatever the reasons for the alteration, it is too little and too late. Against this 

backdrop, Class members were given insufficient notice, making an already unconstitutional 

procedural deprivation even worse. 

___________________________________

STEVEN FRANKLYN HELFAND

410 Southeast 16th Court, Apartment 730

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

786-676-1018 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3399
4 

Steven.Helfand1400@outlook.com

cc: This document was served on the following persons electronically: 

Katrina Carroll

CARLSON LYNCH LLP

111 West Washington Street

Suite 1240

Chicago, Illinois 60602

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

Anthony J. Weibell

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

aweibell@wsgr.com

Jonathan M. Jagher

FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC

923 Fayette Street

Conshohocken, PA 19428

jjagher@fklmlaw.com

Elizabeth A. Fegan

Fegan Scott LLC

150 South Wacker Drive

24th Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

beth@feganscott.com

Ekwan E. Rhow

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, 

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

1875 Century Park East

23rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

erhow@birdmarella.com

Musical.ly and/or TikTok Class Action

Attn: Objections

P.O. Box 58220

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Info@tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

factual matters are true and correct.

___________________________________

STEVEN FRANKLYN HELFAND

410 Southeast 16th Court, Apartment 730

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

786-676-1018 

Steven.Helfand1400@outlook.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:3400
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:3401
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:3402
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:3403
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:3404
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:3405
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:3406
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:3407
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:3408
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:3409
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 192 Filed: 02/07/22 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:3410