1

January 24, 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

Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear at Fairness Hearing 

Dear Judge Lee:

I am a member of the nationwide class. Included with this objection is sufficient evidence of

standing:

I started using the application April 10, 2021. 

I have included a screenshot from Apple’s App Store showing the initial installation date 

of TikTok on my iPhone; to wit, on April 10, 2021. 

I have included a screenshot of the verification code text message received from TikTok 

on April 10, 2021, at 8:53 am, verifying my account. 

My TikTok profile name is “@newimage1400.” I have included a screenshot of the 

profile page of my TikTok account. 

The phone number associated with my TikTok account is 786.676.1018. To the best of 

my recollection, I did not use an email address for the TikTok account, just my phone number. 

To the extent I did also provide an email address it to TikTok, it would have been 

favrileglass1@gmail.com. Due to a technical issue, I have been locked out of the gmail account

for some time. 

Approximately, nine weeks ago, I received a class action settlement notice at my TikTok 

“inbox.” I have included a screen shot from my “inbox” reflecting the notification.

I have included my full name, address, email and telephone number below. 

FILED 1/24/2022

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

CR

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:3272
2

I have included a copy of the proof of claim filed on January 23, 2022, to participate in

the settlement, should it be granted final approval. My claim ID is: TKT51112574. My 

confirmation code: 7x3er2y15Z45. 

My objections apply to the Nationwide Class and the attorneys’ fees sought by counsel. 

My objections also apply as to the Notice overall as to attorneys’ fees.

To the extent that counsel have questions about my objection or my account, they may

take my deposition, but virtually. It must be scheduled on mutually agreeable dates. Class

counsel is encouraged to meet and confer to set a date and time, if needed. I waive service of 

any subpoena. Simply send it, along with any all documents responsive to my objection or 

relating to the fairness hearing to my email address.

The Notice to the class as to the attorneys’ fees sought by counsel violates due process.

The Court has instructed that the fee application of Class counsel be filed on March 31, 

2022. However, the objection deadline is January 31, 2022. As the case is now scheduled, 

the fee petition will be filed after the objection deadline. This sequence of events violates due 

process, the express terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and the decision in Mercury Interactive Corp. 

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

The Seventh Circuit has not stated a requirement that applications for attorneys' fees in 

class action settlements must precede the objection deadline. “Allowing class members an 

opportunity thoroughly to examine counsel’s fee motion, inquire into the bases for various 

charges and ensure that they are adequately documented and supported is essential for the 

protection of the rights of class members. It also ensures that the district court, acting as a 

fiduciary to the class, is presented with adequate, and adequately-tested, information to 

evaluate the reasonableness of a proposed fee.” Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig. v. 

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

None of the fee application materials are posted on the website, in time for the 

objection deadline. There is insufficient time between the anticipated date of posting of the 

application and the fairness hearing. I request that the fairness hearing be reset to a later 

date, to allow sufficient opportunity to review the fee application. Considering the fee 

application may be quite voluminous combined with the fact the Notice does not specifically 

state the amount of fees sought, a meaningful opportunity to review and respond is required. 

See, e.g., Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig. v. Mercury Interactive Corp., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 

(9th Cir. 2010)[“The plain text of the rule requires that any class member be allowed an 

opportunity to object to the fee ‘motion’ itself, not merely to the preliminary notice that such a 

motion will be filed. In this case, although notice of the motion was provided to the class, class 

members were deprived of an adequate opportunity to object to the motion itself, because by 

the time they were served with the motion, the time within which they were required to file 

their objections had already expired.”] The lack of transparency is remarkable. There is no 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:3273
3

reason the fee application could not have been filed prior to the objection deadline. The error 

here is not harmless and I have been precluded from objecting.

While the overall amount obtained may be fair, adequate and reasonable, especially when 

considered with the injunctive relief, this settlement cannot be approved due to structural 

problems: 

The Court preliminarily approved a Nationwide Class and the Illinois Subclass. 

“The Settlement Agreement provides for monetary relief in the form of a $92 million 

escrow account that Defendants would fund within 90 days for the benefit of 

Settlement Class members. Settlement Agreement § 4.1. After deducting all Courtapproved [*16] settlement-related costs and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees, the 

fund would be divided into a total number of pro rata shares equal to the sum of (1) the 

number of Nationwide Class members (an estimated 89 million persons) who submit a valid 

claim and (2) five times the number of Illinois Subclass members (an estimated 1.4 million 

persons, all members of the Nationwide Class as well) who submit a valid claim. Id. §§ 4.5, 5.2-

5.3, 13.1; id., Ex. C, Plan of Allocation and Distribution of Settlement Funds at 2, ECF No. 122-3. 

In this way, members of the Nationwide Class would each receive one share, while members of 

the Illinois Subclass would each receive one share (for being members of the National Class) 

plus five additional shares, for six shares overall.” In re Tiktok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig., 

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188949 (Memorandum, dated September 30, 2021). The Plan of 

Allocation further clarifies that “Each Authorized Claimant who is a member of the Nationwide 

Class and is not a member of the Illinois Subclass shall be paid one pro rata share.”

In spite significant differences in scope and payout, the Settlement Release is the same

for all persons. There is no reason offered in the Notice as to why there is a distinct Illinois 

Subclass when other States have similar laws that could justify unique payouts and the creation 

of artificial classes too, with even greater payments. 

The preliminary approval order lumps the Nationwide Class and the Illinois Subclass into 

a combined, so-called Settlement Class. It then appointed the same named representatives and 

counsel to represent the Settlement Class, irrespective of conflicts between the Nationwide 

Class and the Subclass. But the diversity the Court sought to encourage was defeated by the 

irreconcilable conflicts and inadequacy of representation. By being a member of both the 

Nationwide Class and an extra Subclass, this made the claims of the Subclass antagonistic 

towards the much larger class. This is underscored with respect to the Plan of Allocation and 

granting each Subclass member six shares.

Rule 23(c)(4) states that when appropriate, a class may be divided into Subclasses with 

each Subclass treated as a separate class. This means that each of the Subclasses must 

independently meet the requirements of Rule 23 for maintenance of a class action. See 7B 

Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1790 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3274
4

(1986). A failure to meet any of the requirements set out in Rule 23 will result in the Court 

denying certification of a Subclass.

By using overlapping counsel between two disparate classes, the attorneys and named 

representatives are unable to show they can be adequate representatives for any one class. 

Generally, the adequacy of the representation depends on two factors: (1) the named Plaintiffs 

must appear to be able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified, experienced and 

competent counsel, and (2) the named Plaintiffs must not have interests antagonistic to those 

of the class.

The Subclass was somehow able to extract concessions, likely due to the fact this case 

was filed in Illinois and have the same attorneys. By approving this Settlement, the Court would 

be treating class members disparately and inconsistently, based simply on where they live 

and/or used the application. Such an approach defeats a nationwide class action, with each 

individual state, assuming it had adequate representation, which they do not, requiring its own 

unique Subclass and larger share of the recovery. Of course, since the attorneys here are, in 

large measure based in Illinois, along with this Court, it is fairly easy to deduce why this 

disparate treatment is occurring. But this Court should be skeptical of unique payouts to Illinois 

residents or users of TikTok who happened to use the application in Illinois, at the expense of 

class members living in the rest of the nation. In structuring the settlement in this manner, 

there is inadequacy of representation because the Illinois Subclass has antagonistic interests to 

the Nationwide Class, five times over. See, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. 

Antitrust Litig., 827.F.3d 223 (2nd Cir. 2016). 

Additionally, the Illinois Subclass cannot be certified because it requires the Court to 

make individualized determinations as to whether a person “used the App in the State of Illinois 

to create videos.” See, e.g., Ayala v. U.S/ Xpress Enters., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181118, 2016 WL 

7586910, at * 8 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016)(denying class certification on predominance grounds 

because “the Court would have to conduct individualized inquiries into whether each 

putative Class Member took meal and rest breaks, and if they did not, the reasons why.”) 

Here, the Court would have to determine whether the use was in Illinois during the class 

period and whether the use related to the creation of videos, whatever this means. Does it 

mean, for example, a person who travelled through O’Hara to change planes to one destined 

for Iowa who happens to use TikTok while waiting to board a new plane at O’Hara is a member 

of the Subclass, even if they only filmed video in Iowa? Let’ say, they were editing video at 

O’Hara that was filmed somewhere else? How about if they accessed the app at O’Hara but did 

not take video but did take a photograph to be incorporated into a later video? What about if 

they filmed video in O’Hara and were using TikTok, but their video was not going to be used on 

TikTok, but then they decide to use it that way after all? What if the video is filmed at O’Hara 

not to be used on TikTok but then, while the person is in Iowa, uploads the video to TikTok? 

There are too many permutations requiring individual determinations only exacerbated by the 

ambiguity of the Subclass definition. To the extent the Subclass is ambiguous, so is the Notice 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:3275
5 

and Settlement Agreement. This would be another reason this settlement should not be 

approved. 

The scope of the Subclass matters to Nationwide class members since the five extra

shares granted to a Subclass member results in a corresponding reduction in funds available to 

non-Subclass members.

Further, to the extent that each state has unique laws, such as Illinois, that arguably may 

be advanced against TikTok, Inc., then this only underscores that a nationwide class should not 

be certified, because of issues relating to typicality of claims and lack of superiority of a 

nationwide class action.

To the extent a class may be appropriately certified, it would seem to be for a 

Nationwide class with equal treatment of the claims based on the exact same release. Since 

the action is based on the creation of a Subclass that cannot be certified, the Court should 

decline finding that the settlement, as proposed is fair, adequate and reasonable. 

I have complied with the Notice procedure for submittal of objections:

The Notice states an “objection must include (i) a detailed statement of the Class 

Member’s objection(s), as well as the specific reasons, if any, for each objection, including any 

evidence and legal authority the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court’s attention and any 

evidence the Class Member wishes to introduce in support of his/her objections(s); (ii) the Class 

Member’s full name, address and telephone number; and (iii) information demonstrating that 

the Class Member is entitled to be included as a member of the Class.” I have met the 

requirements set forth in the Notice.

The Settlement Agreement contains additional terms at p. 12 which makes the 

objection requirements confusing. However, the additional terms do not apply to me since I 

am in pro se. See, to wit, Settlement Agreement; “(iv) the identity of all counsel who represent 

the objector, including former or current counsel who may be entitled to compensation for any 

reason related to the objection, along with a statement of the number of times in which that 

counsel has objected to a class action settlement within five years preceding the submission of 

the objection, the caption of the case for each prior objection, and a copy of any relevant 

orders addressing the objection.” (emphasis added). I have no agreements with any other 

person as contemplated by the Notice. 

Pursuant to the Notice, 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

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:3276
6 

410 Southeast 16th Court, Apartment 730

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

786-676-1018 

Steven.Helfand1400@outlook.com

cc: This document was served on the following persons electronically and first-class mail: 

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 #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:3277
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:3278
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:3279
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:3280
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:328
SUBMIT A CLAIM

In Re: TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy

Litigation

MDL No. 2948, 20-cv-4699

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF ILLINOIS

MENU

Your Claim Form has been submitted successfully.

Please print this page for your records.

Your Claim Details

Submitted Claim ID: TKT51112574

Confirmation Code: 7x3er2y15Z45

You will need the above Submitted Claim ID and Confirmation Code if you would like to edit your

Claim at a later time, so please print this page for your records.

CLAIM INFORMATION

Class Member’s First Name Steven

Class Member’s Last Name Helfand

Street Address 410 SE 16th Court

City fort lauderdale

State FL

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:3282
Print Home

Zip Code 33316

Current Phone Number 786-676-1018

Current Email Address steven.helfand1400@outlook.com

Parent/Guardian First Name: Steven

Parent/Guardian Last Name: Helfand

Mobile Phone Number Associated with your

TikTok Account:

786-676-1018

Do you currently reside in the United States?: Yes

Are you both (1) a resident of Illinois (2) who

used the TikTok – Make Your Day video-sharing

application (and/or its Musical.ly predecessor) to

create videos while living in Illinois?:

No

Did you use the TikTok - Make Your Day videosharing application (and/or its Musical.ly

predecessor) distributed in the U.S. prior to

September 30, 2021?:

Yes

TikTok Username 1: newimage1400

Payment Method: E-MasterCard

Signature Steven Helfand

Date 2022-01-23 16:17:06

If you have any questions regarding your Claim, please provide the Submitted Claim ID listed above

and email us at Info@tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com

Click here to edit your Claim.

Copyright © 2022 Privacy Policy

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:3283
Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 182 Filed: 01/24/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:3284