1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: TIKTOK, INC. CONSUMER 

PRIVACY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Case No. 1:20-cv-05305 

MDL No. 2948 

Master Docket No. 20 C 4699 

Judge John Z. Lee 

Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

Plaintiff M.G.’s purported emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 

3, “the Emergency Motion”)1 should be denied as both moot and meritless for at least four reasons: 

 First, the Emergency Motion is moot because it seeks to enjoin Defendants from 

transferring data they do not have: “data that Plaintiff contends constitutes [Plaintiff’s] biometric 

identifiers and biometric information (referred to collectively as ‘biometrics’) within the meaning 

of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (‘BIPA’) – to any entity that acquires TikTok.” 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants collected Plaintiff’s “voiceprints and face templates” 

and that Defendants may transfer this data to a third party to comply with executive orders issued 

by the President of the United States. ECF No. 4 at 2. But as TikTok already explained to Plaintiff, 

there is no need for an injunction because TikTok is not in possession of any “voiceprints” or “face 

templates” for Plaintiff. There is, therefore, absolutely no risk that such non-existent data will be 

transferred to a third party. 

1

 Notably, Plaintiff’s civil action was filed two days ago on the same day lead counsel applications 

were due in the MDL. Plaintiff rushed to file a complaint, emergency motion for temporary 

restraining order, and application for lead counsel appointment in the MDL all on that day. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 62 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1556
2 

 Second, the Emergency Motion is also moot because it seeks to force Defendants to comply 

with BIPA by defying federal executive orders; but as Plaintiff’s brief concedes, BIPA expressly 

allows for the transfer of biometric data when “required by State or federal law or municipal 

ordinance.” ECF No. 4 at 5 (quoting 740 ILCS 14/15(d)). Executive orders purportedly issued 

pursuant to statutory authority, like those at issue here, are “federal law.” See Bassidji v. Goe, 413 

F.3d 928, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2005) (contract was “illegal” under “federal law” because it violated 

executive order banning transactions with Iran); Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin, 418 U.S. 

264, 273 n.5 (1974) (“we have no difficulty concluding that the Executive Order is valid and may 

create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause”); Stevens v. 

Carey, 483 F.2d 188, 190 (7th Cir. 1973) (executive orders “issued pursuant to statutory authority 

providing for presidential implementation ... have the force and effect of law”). Here, the 

executive orders fall under BIPA’s federal law exemption until such time as they may be held 

invalid by court order. Complying with the executive orders will thus not violate BIPA. 

 Third, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion is meritless because it is not supported by any sworn 

declaration, affidavit, or verified complaint. Instead, Plaintiff’s false allegations relating to 

Defendants’ supposed collection of biometric data are supported only by his own conclusory 

allegations made on “information and belief.” Such conclusory allegations are insufficient for 

Plaintiff to satisfy his “significant burden” to “make a strong showing that [he] is likely to succeed 

on the merits.” Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, No. 20-2175, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28118, at 

*5-6 (7th Cir. Sep. 3, 2020) (affirming denial of TRO where plaintiff failed to demonstrate how it 

could “prove the key elements of its case”); McDonald v. Cook Cty. Officers’ Electoral Bd., No. 

18 C 1277, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42503, at *17-18 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2018) (denying TRO 

because “unsubstantiated and trite generalizations are not evidence and [plaintiff’s] declaration 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 62 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1557
3 

does not make them so; she is not in a position to testify about [the pertinent facts]”); see also Reed 

v. Allied Waste Transp., Inc., 621 F. App’x 345, 347 (7th Cir. 2015) (“unsworn allegations are not 

evidence”) (citing Thomas v. Christ Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 328 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2003)). 

 Fourth, Plaintiff fails to show that he will suffer any “irreparable injury.” Pritzker, 2020 

U.S. App. LEXIS 28118, at *6 (“The applicant must also demonstrate that irreparable injury is 

likely in the absence of an injunction”). Plaintiff alleges that the TikTok mobile app is a videosharing social media application that he used to upload and share “videos of himself.” Compl. ¶ 

84. But he makes no showing how transfer of these videos to a U.S. acquiring company will cause 

him any irreparable injury. Any acquiror will be subject to the same laws to which Defendants are 

currently subject. And as explained above, no “voiceprints” or “face templates” for Plaintiff exist. 

For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: September 10, 2020 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Anthony J Weibell 

Anthony J Weibell (aweibell@wsgr.com) 

David S. Steuer (dsteuer@wsgr.com) 

Sara Lai-Ming Rose Tolbert (srose@wsgr.com) 

Curtis S. Kowalk (ckowalk@wsgr.com) 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Victor Jih (vjih@wsgr.com) 

Ryan S. Benyamin (rbenyamin@wsgr.com) 

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027 

Telephone: (323) 210-2900 

Lead Counsel for all Defendants

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 62 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1558
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 10, 2020, the foregoing document was filed 

electronically through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Service of this document is 

being made upon all counsel of record in this case by the Notice of Electronic Filing issues 

through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System on this date. 

/s/Anthony J Weibell______ 

Anthony J Weibell 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 62 Filed: 09/10/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1559