1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

William A. Baird (SBN 192675)

william.a.baird.1@gmail.com

BAIRD LAW FIRM

2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330

Westlake Village, CA 91361

Telephone: 805-267-1209

Facsimile: 866-747-3905

Joseph P. Guglielmo

jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10169

Telephone: 212-223-6444

Facsimile: 212-223-6334

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[Additional counsel on signature page.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

G.R., a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Mayra De La Cruz, Individually 

and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIKTOK, INC., a California Corporation, and BYTEDANCE INC., a Delaware 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:20-cv-04537

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff G.R., by and through her guardian, Mayra De La Cruz, complains

upon knowledge as to herself and her own actions and upon information and belief as 

to all other matters against Defendants TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Inc. (collectively, 

“TikTok” or “Defendants”), as follows:

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1. This action arises from Defendants’ unlawful and intentional collection 

and use of minors’ confidential biometric information without their consent and 

subsequent unauthorized disclosure of that information to third parties from 

approximately May 14, 2017 to the present (the “Class Period”) in violation of state 

law. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and similarly situated users of the TikTok app,

brings this suit under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), Cal.

Civ. Code. §1798.100 et seq., and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., and for declaratory and other equitable relief 

under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201 et seq.

2. TikTok is a short-video sharing app and social network platform, and is 

one of the most popular and fastest growing social networking apps in the world. 

TikTok allows users to create, view, and share three to 15-second videos of dancing, 

lip-syncing, and other forms of self-expression, as well as short looping videos of 

three to 60 seconds. TikTok currently has approximately 2.4 million active daily 

users, many of whom are minors.

3. The TikTok app scans a user’s facial geometry before running an 

algorithm to determine the user’s age. The app also uses facial scans to allow users 

to superimpose animated facial filters onto the moving faces of video subjects.

4. Minors who have registered for or used TikTok and interacted with the 

app have not consented to TikTok’s collection, retention, or release of their biometric 

information.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5. Plaintiff and Class Members have particular concerns given TikTok’s 

reported connections to the Chinese government, which have recently come under 

close public scrutiny. At least two U.S. Senators formally requested that the 

intelligence community conduct an assessment of the national security risks posed by 

TikTok. Because of data concerns, some U.S. military branches have even banned 

the use of the app on government-issued phones. Senator Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) has 

called for a total ban on the use of the app across the United States.1 Reddit CEO and 

co-founder Steve Huffman, called TikTok “fundamentally parasitic” due to privacy 

concerns.2

6. California laws recognize individual’s reasonable expectations of 

privacy in biometric information. California specifically recognizes privacy as a 

fundamental right, and accordingly, California law prohibits, among other things,

collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating or profiting 

from the biometric identifiers or information of an individual without providing 

written notice and without obtaining a written release from the impacted individual or 

his authorized representative. California also requires private entities in possession 

of biometric identifiers to adopt retention policies and to take measures to prevent the 

release of that information.

7. Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a) without adequately informing 

the impacted individuals, including Plaintiff and members of the proposed class (the 

“Class Members”), that their biometric identifiers were being collected, captured, 

obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated; (b) without informing the 

impacted individuals in writing of the purpose of the collection, capture, obtainment, 

1 T.J. McCue, Is TikTok Raiding Your Privacy in 2020? Here Is How To Stop It, FORBES (Feb. 13, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2020/02/13/is-tiktok- raiding-your-privacy-in-2020-here-is-how-to-stop-it/#1e34f6b569c8. 2 Chaim Gartenberg, Reddit CEO Says TikTok is ‘fundamentally parasitic,’ cites 

privacy concerns, THE VERGE (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/ 2020/2/27/21155845/ reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-tiktok-privacy-concerns-spyware- fingerprinting-tracking-users.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

disclosure, redisclosure, and dissemination of the biometric identifiers and 

information; and (c) without seeking and obtaining written releases from such 

impacted individuals or their authorized representatives.

8. Given the concealed and secretive nature of Defendants’ conduct, more 

evidence supporting the allegations in this complaint will be uncovered after a 

reasonable opportunity for discovery.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C §1332(d) because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds 

$5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, there are more than 100 putative Class 

Members, and minimal diversity exists because more than two-thirds of putative Class 

Members are citizens of a state different than Defendants.

10. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because 

their principal places of business are in California. Additionally, Defendants are 

subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this State because a substantial part of the 

events and conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims occurred in this 

State.

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because 

a substantial portion of the conduct described in this complaint was carried out in this 

District. Furthermore, Defendant TikTok, Inc. is headquartered in this District and 

subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

12. Plaintiff G.R. (“Plaintiff G.R.”) is a minor and brings this suit by and 

through her legal guardian, Mayra De La Cruz. Plaintiff G.R. is a natural person and 

citizen of the State of California and a resident of Los Angeles County.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

B. Defendants

13. Defendant TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”) is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business 

at 10100 Venice Boulevard, Culver City, California 90232.

14. Defendant ByteDance, Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of 

the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 3000 El Camino Real, 

Building 2, Suite 400, Palo Alto, California 94306.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Background Information on TikTok

15. ByteDance, Inc. the parent company of TikTok, Inc., first launched the 

TikTok app (then known as “Douyin”) in China in September 2016. The app 

ultimately became available in the United States in August 2018 following a merger 

between TikTok and Shanghai-based social media platform, musical.ly. While 

TikTok and Douyin are similar to each other and essentially the same app, they run 

on separate servers to comply with Chinese censorship restrictions.

16. The app allows users to create short music and lip-sync videos of three 

seconds to 15 seconds and short looping videos of three seconds to 60 seconds. By 

October 2018, TikTok was the most downloaded app in the United States.

17. As of January 2020, minor users, like Plaintiff G.R. and Class Members, 

accounted for 37.2% of TikTok’s active user accounts in the United States.

18. In direct violation of the CCPA, the TikTok app’s proprietary facial 

recognition technology scans every video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts 

geometric data relating to the unique points and contours (i.e., biometric identifiers) 

of each face, and then uses that data to create and store a template of each face – all 

without ever informing anyone of this practice.

19. To accomplish this end, Defendants implemented an artificial 

intelligence tool in the app that automatically performs these facial scans. This 

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

technology permits users to superimpose images onto their face or to use various 

“filters” that alter, distort, or enhance their facial features.

20. In collecting, capturing and otherwise obtaining the biometric identifiers 

and information of Plaintiff and Class Members and, upon information and belief, 

subsequently disclosing, redisclosing, and otherwise disseminating those biometric 

identifiers and information to other related corporate entities – all without providing 

the requisite notice, obtaining the requisite releases or satisfying any of CCPA’s other 

provisions that would excuse it from CCPA’s mandates – Defendants violated CCPA, 

Defendants failed to use a reasonable standard of care to protect Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and information from disclosure and, in fact, 

affirmatively disclosed their biometric identifiers and information.3

21. In further violation of CCPA, as a private entity in possession of 

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information, Defendants 

failed to adopt or make available to the public a retention policy and information once 

the initial purpose for collecting them had or has been satisfied.

22. Defendants’ violations of CCPA were intentional and reckless or, in the 

alternative, negligent.

TikTok’s Unlawful Actions Have Harmed Plaintiff

23. Plaintiff G.R., an 8-year-old minor, has, within the applicable statute of 

limitations, uploaded and posted numerous videos to TikTok, which include images 

of her face, and her face has appeared in other users’ uploaded videos. Plaintiff G.R. 

has uploaded videos, and/or Plaintiff G.R.’s face has appeared in videos uploaded by 

3 https://www.tiktok.com/legal/privacy-policy?lang=en (last visited May 15, 

2020) (“We share the categories of personal information listed above with service 

providers and business partners to help us perform business operations and for 

business purposes, including research, payment processing and transaction 

fulfillment, database maintenance, administering contests and special offers, 

technology services, deliveries, email deployment, advertising, analytics, 

measurement, data storage and hosting, disaster recovery, search engine optimization, 

marketing, and data processing.”).

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

other users, employing TikTok’s face sticker, face filter, and face tracker lens 

technology.

24. Through these videos, Defendants have collected and stored Plaintiff

G.R.’s unique biometric identifiers or biometric information. Upon information and 

belief, Defendants have disclosed and/or disseminated these biometric identifiers or 

biometric information to third parties.

25. At no point did Plaintiff consent to or authorize TikTok to intercept, 

record, disclose, or otherwise misuse her biometric information. Moreover, TikTok

could not have obtained consent from Plaintiff G.R., who was a minor during the 

entire Class Period. Plaintiff would not have registered for or used for TikTok had 

she known that TikTok engaged in the unlawful actions described herein.

26. Plaintiff would like to continue to use TikTok in the future, but will be 

uncertain as to whether TikTok has ceased its unlawful practices and violation of her

privacy rights without the equitable relief requested herein, specifically an injunction 

prohibiting TikTok from engaging in the unlawful practices alleged herein. This is 

particularly the case given the surreptitious nature of TikTok’s misconduct.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

27. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23 individually and on behalf of the following Class:

All minor persons who registered for or used the TikTok app from at least May 14, 2017 to the present (the “Class Period”).4

28. Excluded from each Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding 

over this action and any members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ 

subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or 

their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, 

4 Plaintiff has defined the Class based on currently available information and 

hereby reserves the right to amend the definition of the Class, including, without 

limitation, the Class Period.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

officers, and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for 

exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally 

adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and 

Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any 

such excluded persons.

29. Ascertainability: Membership of the Class is defined based on 

objective criteria, and individual members will be identifiable from Defendants’

records.

30. Numerosity: The exact number of members of the Class is unknown 

and unavailable to Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is 

impracticable. The Class likely consists of millions of individuals, and Class 

Members can be identified through Defendants’ records.

31. Predominant Common Questions: The Class’s claims present 

common questions of law and fact, and those questions predominate over any 

questions that may affect individual Class Members. Common questions for the Class 

include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. whether Defendants collect, retain, or release the biometric information

of minors who interact with them;

b. whether individuals who use TikTok have a reasonable expectation of 

privacy under California law;

c. whether TikTok’s business practices of collecting, retaining, releasing, 

and otherwise misusing users’ private and confidential information and 

other personal information violated state law;

d. whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to declaratory and/or 

injunctive relief to enjoin the unlawful conduct alleged herein; and

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

e. whether Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained damages as a result 

of TikTok’s conduct, and, if so, what is the appropriate measure of 

damages or restitution.

32. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other 

members of the proposed Class. Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an invasion of 

privacy as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct that is uniform across the Class.

33. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff has fairly and adequately 

represented and protected the interests of the Class and will continue to do so. She 

has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex litigation and class 

actions, including privacy violations. Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic 

to those of the Class, and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff 

and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the 

members of the Class, and they have the resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her 

counsel have any interests adverse to those of the other members of the Class.

34. Substantial Benefits: This class action is appropriate for certification 

because class proceedings are superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy and joinder of all members of the Class is 

impracticable. This proposed class action presents fewer management difficulties 

than individual litigation, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies 

of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Class treatment will create 

economies of time, effort, and expense and promote uniform decision-making.

35. Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing class allegations and 

definitions based on facts learned and legal developments following additional 

investigation, discovery, or otherwise.

CALIFORNIA LAW APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE CLASS

36. California’s substantive laws apply to every member of the Class, 

regardless of where in the United States the Class Member resides. California’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

substantive laws may be constitutionally applied to the claims of Plaintiff and the 

Class under the Due Process Clause, 14th Amend. §1, and the Full Faith and Credit 

Clause, Art. IV §1 of the U.S. Constitution. California has significant contact, or 

significant aggregation of contacts, to the claims asserted by Plaintiff and all Class 

Members, thereby creating state interests that ensure that the choice of California state 

law is not arbitrary or unfair.

37. Defendants’ U.S. headquarters and principal places of business are

located in California. Defendants also own property and conduct substantial business 

in California, and therefore California has an interest in regulating Defendants’ 

conduct under its laws. Defendants’ decision to reside in California and avail itself

of California’s laws, and to engage in the challenged conduct from and emanating out 

of California, renders the application of California law to the claims herein 

constitutionally permissible.

38. California is also the state from which Defendants’ alleged misconduct 

emanated. This conduct similarly injured and affected Plaintiff and all other Class 

Members.

39. The application of California laws to the Class is also appropriate under 

California’s choice of law rules because California has significant contacts to the 

claims of Plaintiff and the proposed Class, and California has a greater interest in 

applying its laws here than any other interested state.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq. (on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the preceding allegations of this 

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

41. The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) protects consumers’

personal information from collection and use by businesses without consumers’

notice and consent.

42. Defendants violated the CCPA by collecting, retaining, and using 

customers’ biometric information without providing the required notice under the 

CCPA. Defendants did not notify Plaintiff and the Class Members that they were 

disclosing their biometric information to unauthorized third parties.

43. Defendants also violated the CCPA by failing to provide notice to their 

customers of their right to opt-out of the disclosure of their biometric information to 

unauthorized third parties, like Facebook. Defendants did not give Plaintiff and the 

Class Members the opportunity to opt out before they provided their biometric 

information to unauthorized third parties.

44. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order enjoining 

Defendants from continuing to violate the CCPA, as well as actual damages on behalf 

of herself and the Class.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

Cal. Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq. (on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the preceding allegations of this 

complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.

46. TikTok engaged in business acts and practices deemed “unlawful” under 

the UCL, because, as alleged above, TikTok unlawfully intercepted, recorded,

disclosed, and otherwise misused Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric 

information without consent in violation of the CCPA. In addition, TikTok’s breach 

of its own privacy policy as alleged above constitutes a violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §22576.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

47. TikTok also engaged in business acts and practices deemed “unlawful” 

under the UCL, because TikTok unlawfully intercepted, recorded, disclosed, and 

otherwise misused Plaintiff G.R.’s and Class Members’ interactions without consent, 

which violates public policy as declared by specific statutory provisions, including 

Cal. Fam. Code §6701 and §6710, which prohibit Defendants from obtaining consent 

by minors.

48. Specifically, Cal. Fam. Code §6701 states that: “A minor cannot do any 

of the following: (a) Give a delegation of power . . . .” Cal. Fam. Code §6710 states 

that: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a contract of a minor may be 

disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards or, 

in case of the minor’s death within that period, by the minor’s heirs or personal 

representative.”

49. TikTok did not obtain the minor Plaintiff G.R.’s consent to intercept, 

record, disclose, or use her biometric information. TikTok could not obtain consent 

to intercept, record, disclose or use the minor Plaintiff G.R.’s biometric information. 

To the extent that TikTok attempts to claim that it obtained the minor Plaintiff G.R.’s 

consent, pursuant to Cal. Fam. Code §6710, Plaintiff G.R. disaffirms such consent.

50. TikTok also engaged in business acts or practices deemed “unfair” under 

the UCL because, as alleged above, TikTok failed to disclose during the Class Period 

that TikTok was intercepting, recording, disclosing and otherwise misusing Plaintiff’s

and Class Members’ biometric information without their consent. Unfair acts under 

the UCL have been interpreted using three different tests: (1) whether the public 

policy which is a predicate to a consumer unfair competition action under the unfair 

prong of the UCL is tethered to specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory 

provisions; (2) whether the gravity of the harm to the consumer caused by the

challenged business practice outweighs the utility of the defendant’s conduct; and (3) 

whether the consumer injury is substantial, not outweighed by any countervailing 

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

benefits to consumers or competition, and is an injury that consumers themselves 

could not reasonably have avoided. Defendants’ conduct is unfair under each of these 

tests. TikTok’s conduct alleged is unfair under all of these tests.

51. As described above, TikTok’s conduct violates the policies of the 

statutes referenced above. The gravity of the harm of TikTok’s secret intercepting, 

recording, disclosure, and other misuse of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric 

information, including those by minors, is significant and there is no corresponding 

benefit to consumers of such conduct. Finally, because Plaintiff and Class Members 

were completely unaware of TikTok’s secret recordings and disclosure, they could 

not have possibly avoided the harm.

52. Had Plaintiff known that her communications would be intercepted, 

recorded, disclosed, and misused, she would not have registered for TikTok. Plaintiff 

and Class Members have a property interest in any recordings of their biometric 

information. By surreptitiously intercepting, recording, disclosing, or otherwise 

misusing Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric information, TikTok has taken 

property from Plaintiff and Class Members without providing just or any 

compensation.

53. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks: an injunction 

enjoining TikTok from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged in this claim and 

requiring TikTok to delete all biometric information of Class Members, to cease 

further collection, to implement functionality sufficient to prevent unauthorized 

collection in the future, to cease disclosing biometric information of the Class to third 

parties without prior consent, and other appropriate equitable relief, including but not 

limited to improving its privacy disclosures and obtaining adequately informed 

consent.

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Request for Relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. §2201 et seq. (on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the preceding allegations of this 

complaint with the same force and effect as if fully restated herein.

55. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201 et seq., this Court 

is authorized to enter a judgment declaring the rights and legal relations of the parties 

and grant further necessary relief. Furthermore, the Court has broad authority to 

restrain acts, such as here, that are tortious and that violate the terms of the federal 

and state statutes described in this complaint.

56. An actual controversy has arisen in the wake of Defendants’ intercepting, 

recording, disclosure, and misuse of Plaintiff’s and Class members’ biometric 

information without their consent as alleged herein in violation of Defendants’ 

common law and statutory duties.

57. Plaintiff continues to suffer injury and damages as described herein as 

Defendants continue to intercept, record, disclose, and misuse Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ biometric information, including biometric information of minors whose 

consent to use Defendants cannot obtain.

58. Pursuant to its authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court 

should enter a judgment declaring, among other things, the following:

a. Defendants continue to owe a legal duty to not intercept, record, disclose, 

and otherwise misuse Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric 

information under, inter alia, the common law, CCPA, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code §22576, and Cal. Fam. Code §6710;

b. Defendants continue to breach their legal duties by continuing to 

intercept, record, disclose, and misuse Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ 

biometric information; and

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

c. Defendants’ ongoing breaches of their legal duties continue to cause 

Plaintiff and Class Members harm.

59. The Court should also issue corresponding injunctive relief, including 

but not limited to, enjoining TikTok from engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged 

in this claim and requiring TikTok to delete all biometric information of Class

Members, to cease further collection, and to implement functionality sufficient to 

prevent unauthorized collection and use in the future, and other appropriate equitable 

relief, including but not limited to, improving its privacy disclosures and obtaining 

adequately informed consent.

60. If an injunction is not issued, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury and 

lack an adequate legal remedy in the event of Defendants’ ongoing conduct.

61. State laws prohibit, among other things, interception, recording, 

disclosure, and other misuse of biometric information without consent. California 

specifically recognizes protection of biometric information as a fundamental right. 

Given that TikTok admits that it continues to intercept, record, disclose, and misuse

biometric information, including that of minors, the risk of continued violations of 

California law is real, immediate, and substantial. Plaintiff does not have an adequate 

remedy at law because many of the resulting injuries are reoccurring and Plaintiff will 

be forced to bring multiple lawsuits to rectify the same conduct.

62. The hardship to Plaintiff and the Class if an injunction is not issued 

exceeds the hardship to Defendants if an injunction is issued. On the other hand, the 

cost to Defendants of complying with an injunction by complying with California law 

and by ceasing to engage in the misconduct alleged herein is relatively minimal, and 

Defendants have a pre-existing legal obligation to avoid invading the privacy rights 

of consumers.

63. Issuance of the requested injunction will serve the public interest by 

preventing ongoing intercepting, recording, disclosure, and misuse of biometric 

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

information without consent, and intercepting, recording, disclosure, and misuse of 

biometric information of minors, thus eliminating the injuries that would result to 

Plaintiff, the Class, and the millions of consumers who registered for and used 

TikTok.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the proposed Class,

respectfully requests that the Court enter an order:

A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above, 

appointing Plaintiff as a representative of the Class, and appointing her counsel as 

class counsel;

B. Declaring that TikTok’s actions, as set out above, violate California’s 

laws cited herein;

C. Requiring TikTok to delete all biometric information of Members of the 

Class, cease further collection, retention, and use, and implement functionality to 

prevent further collection, retention, and use of biometric information of the Class 

without prior consent, and to cease disclosing biometric information of the Class to 

third parties without prior consent;

D. Requiring TikTok to undertake measures to cure the harm caused to the 

Class by its wrongdoing, as alleged herein, including, but not limited to, improving 

its privacy disclosures and obtaining adequately informed consent;

E. Awarding damages to Plaintiff and the Class in an amount to be 

determined at trial;

F. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their costs of suit, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and expenses;

G. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre-and post-judgment interest, to the 

extent allowable;

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

H. Enjoining TikTok from further engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged 

herein;

I. Awarding such other further injunctive and declaratory relief as is 

necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class; and

J. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems reasonable 

and just.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

Dated: May 20, 2020 BAIRD LAW FIRM

/s/ William A. Baird

William A. Baird (SBN 192675)

william.a.baird.1@gmail.com

2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330

Westlake Village, CA 91361

Telephone: 805-267-1209

Facsimile: 866-747-3905

Joseph P. Guglielmo

jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10169

Telephone: 212-223-6444

Facsimile: 212-223-6334

Erin Green Comite

ecomite@scott-scott.com

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

156 South Main Street

P.O. Box 192

Colchester, CT 06415

Telephone: 860-537-5537

Facsimile: 860-537-4432

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Joseph A. Pettigrew (SBN 236933)

(Of Counsel)

jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP

600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 860-537-5537

Facsimile: 860-537-4432

E. Kirk Wood

ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC

P. O. Box 382434

Birmingham, AL 35238-2434

Telephone: 205-908-4906

Facsimile: 866-747-3905

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-05212 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/20/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18