CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Megan E. Jones (Cal. Bar No. 296274) 

Seth R. Gassman (Cal. Bar No. 311702) 

HAUSFELD LLP 

600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 633-1908 

mjones@hausfeld.com 

sgassman@hausfeld.com 

Will Thompson (CA Bar No. 289012) 

BURNS CHAREST LLP 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (469) 904-4550 

wthompson@burnscharest.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

P. S., a minor, by and through her Guardian, 

Cherise Slate, and M. T. W., a minor, by and 

through her Guardian, Brenda Washington, 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 vs. 

TIKTOK, INC., a corporation, and 

BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, 

 Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT: 

(1) Violation of Illinois Biometric 

Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 

14/1 et seq., § 15 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
i 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................... 2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3

A. Biometric Information and BIPA. ..................................................................................3

B. The Evolution of TikTok. ..............................................................................................4

C. Defendants have collected, captured, received, obtained, stored and/or 

used biometric identifiers and/or information in violation of Section 15(b) 

of BIPA. .........................................................................................................................6

D. Defendants’ failure to provide a written, publicly available policy regarding 

the retention and destruction of biometric information violated Section 15(a) 

of BIPA. .........................................................................................................................9

E. Plaintiffs’ Personal Experiences. ...................................................................................9

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................. 10

CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................................. 13

First Cause of Action ............................................................................................................13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 14

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL .................................................................................................... 15

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
Page 1 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Plaintiffs P. S., a minor, by and through her guardian Cherise Slate, and M. T. W., a minor, 

by and through her guardian Brenda Washington, on behalf of themselves and other similarly 

situated individuals, bring this Class Action Complaint against Defendants TikTok, Inc., 

(“TikTok”) both individually and as a successor-in-interest to Musical.ly, Inc. (“musical.ly”) and 

ByteDance, Inc., (“ByteDance”) (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) and allege as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. TikTok, Inc. has created one of the most popular social media networking apps in 

the United States (“TikTok App” or the “App”). The App allows users to create, view, and share 

three to fifteen-second videos of dancing, lip-syncing, and other forms of self-expression, as well 

as short looping videos of three to sixty seconds. 

2. The App’s playful features belie Defendants’ reliance on users’ private, biometric 

information. The 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. 

3. Defendants do not inform the App’s users that their biometric data is being 

collected, captured, received, obtained, stored, and/or used by the App. Nor do Defendants disclose 

what they do with that data, who has access to that data, and whether, where, and for how long 

that data is stored. 

4. By collecting, capturing, receiving, obtaining, storing and/or using facial scans 

without obtaining informed consent and by failing to make public their data use and retention 

policy, Defendants violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 

14/1 et seq.

5. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of proposed classes in order 

to enjoin Defendants’ continued violation of BIPA and to recover statutory damages for 

Defendants’ unauthorized collection, capture, receipt, storage, and/or use of biometric information 

belonging to TikTok App users in Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
Page 2 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff P. S., a minor, is and has been at all relevant times, a resident and citizen 

of the state of Illinois. P. S. brings this case by and through her guardian, Cherise Slate, a resident 

and citizen of the state of Illinois. P. S. began using TikTok in 2019. 

7. Plaintiff M. T. W., a minor, is and has been at all relevant times, a resident and 

citizen of the state of Illinois. M. T. W. brings this case by and through her guardian, Brenda 

Washington, a resident and citizen of the state of Illinois. M. T. W. began using TikTok in 2018. 

8. Defendant TikTok, Inc. is, and at all relevant times was, a California corporation 

with its principal place of business in Culver City, California. Defendant also maintains offices in 

Palo Alto and Mountain View, California. 

9. TikTok, Inc. is sued in its individual capacity and as the successor-in-interest to 

Musical.ly, Inc., a California Corporation formerly headquartered in Palo Alto, California. 

10. Defendant ByteDance, Inc. is, and at all relevant times was, a Delaware corporation 

with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”) because (i) the proposed class consists of well over 100 

members; (ii) the parties are minimally diverse as all members of the proposed class, including 

Plaintiffs, are citizens of Illinois—a state different from Defendants’ home states of California and 

Delaware; and (iii) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest 

and costs. The estimated number of Illinois TikTok users impacted by Defendants’ conduct 

multiplied by BIPA’s statutory liquidated damages figure ($5,000 for each intentional or reckless 

violation and $1,000 for each negligent violation) exceeds CAFA’s $5,000,000 threshold. 

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because (i) both Defendants’ 

principal places of business are in the State of California, and Defendant TikTok, Inc. is 

incorporated in the State of California; and (ii) because the allegations in this Complaint arise from 

Defendants’ misconduct occurring within this State. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
Page 3 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this District because: 

(i) Defendant ByteDance, Inc.’s principal place of business is in this District; and (ii) a substantial 

part of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in or emanated from this District. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Biometric Information and BIPA. 

14. In 2008, Illinois enacted BIPA in light of the “very serious need [for] protections 

for the citizens of Illinois when it comes to [their] biometric information.”1

15. Biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers used to access finances or other 

sensitive information. “For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. 

Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the 

individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from 

biometric-facilitated transactions.”2

16. To address this legitimate concern, Section 15(b) of BIPA provides that: 

No private entity may collect, capture, purchase, receive through 

trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric 

identifier or biometric information, unless it first: 

(1) informs the subject or the subject’s legally authorized 

representative in writing that a biometric identifier or 

biometric information is being collected or stored; 

(2) informs the subject or the subject’s legally authorized 

representative in writing of the specific purpose and 

length of term for which a biometric identifier or 

biometric information is being collected, stored, and 

used; and 

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the 

biometric identifier or biometric information or the 

subject’s legally authorized representative.3

1

 95th Ill. Gen. Assem. House Proceedings, May 30, 2008, at 249 (statement of Representative Ryg), available at 

http://www.ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans95/09500276.pdf. 

2

 740 ILCS 14/5(c). 

3

 740 ILCS 14/15(b). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
Page 4 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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. Section 15(a) of BIPA further provides that: 

A private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric 

information must develop a written policy, made available to the 

public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for 

permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric 

information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such 

identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the 

individual’s last interaction with the private entity, whichever 

occurs first.4

18. For BIPA purposes, a “biometric identifier” is any personal feature that is unique 

to an individual and specifically includes scans of facial geometry.5

19. BIPA defines “biometric information” as “any information, regardless of how it is 

captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify 

an individual.”6

 

B. The Evolution of TikTok. 

20. ByteDance Ltd., the parent of ByteDance, Inc., is a Beijing-based company 

founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. 

21. ByteDance Ltd. first launched the TikTok App (originally called “A.me” in China 

but now called “Douyin”) for the China market in September 2016. In 2016, the App was launched 

for iOS and Android in markets outside of China. 

22. In November 2017, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, spent up to $1 billion 

to purchase musical.ly, a startup based in Shanghai with an office in Santa Monica, California. 

Musical.ly was a social media video platform that, like the TikTok App, allowed users to create 

short lip-sync and comedy videos (“musical.ly App”).7

 

4

 740 ILCS 14/15(a). 

5

 740 ILCS 14/10. 

6 Id. 

7

 Liza Lin & Rolfe Winkler, Social Media App Musical.ly Is Acquired for as Much as $1 Billion, Wall Street J. 

(Nov. 9, 2017 at 8:46 p.m.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/lip-syncing-app-musical-ly-is-acquired-for-as-much-as-1-

billion-1510278123. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
Page 5 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

23. The musical.ly App was first launched in 2014, and, like the TikTok App, used 

facial scans to allow users to superimpose animated facial filters onto the moving faces of video 

subjects.8

24. In order to leverage musical.ly’s young user base, TikTok merged the App with 

musical.ly on August 2, 2018 to create a larger video community, with existing accounts and data 

consolidated into one app, keeping the App title “TikTok.” This ended musical.ly and made the 

TikTok App a world-wide app. 

25. In the United States, the TikTok App is generally a young person’s app. Sixty 

percent of active users are between the ages of 16 and 24,9 and about seventy percent of ten-yearold girls with smartphones used the App at some point in 2019.10

26. The App has become one of the world’s fastest-growing social media platforms and 

enjoys a massive American audience. It has been downloaded more than 1.3 billion times 

worldwide and more than 120 million times in the United States. 

27. The App is the most downloaded non-game app in the world. On the Apple and 

Google app stores it routinely outranks competitors such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. 

28. As of March 2019, the average user opened the App more than eight times per day 

and spent approximately 45 minutes on the App daily. 

29. Defendants implemented an artificial intelligence tool in the App that automatically 

scans the faces of individuals in videos to estimate the subjects’ ages.11

8

 Americanoize, 5 Great Musically Face Filters, Medium (Nov. 16, 2017), https://medium.com/@americanoize/5-

great-musically-face-filters-b88c41ea32c8. 

9

 Greg Roumeliotis, et al., Exclusive: U.S. Opens National Security Investigation Into TikTok – Sources (Nov. 1, 

2019 at 8:21 a.m.), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-opens-national-securityinvestigation-into-tiktok-sources-idUSKBN1XB4IL. 

10 Georgia Wells & Yoree Koh, TikTok Wants to Grow Up, but Finds It Tough to Keep Kids Out (Feb. 16, 2020 at 

8:00 a.m.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-wants-to-grow-up-but-finds-it-tough-to-keep-kids-out11581858006. 

11 Id. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
Page 6 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

30. The TikTok App, like the musical.ly App before it, also features a variety of popular 

face filters that users can superimpose onto a subject’s moving face or even allow editing of certain 

facial features.12

31. To work, both of these tools require the scanning and/or mapping of a user’s 

biologically unique facial geometry and/or facial landmarks. 

32. Upon information and belief, TikTok, Inc. shared the biometric information it 

collected, captured, received, obtained, stored, and/or used from users of the App with other 

members of its corporate family during the Class period, including Defendant ByteDance, Inc. 

33. As recently as August of 2018, the TikTok App’s U.S. Privacy Policy stated: “We 

will also share your information with any member or affiliate of our group, in China...”13 Even 

today, the TikTok App’s U.S. Privacy Policy states: “We may share your information with a 

parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of our corporate group.”14

34. TikTok users are never told that Defendants collect, capture, receive, obtain, store, 

and/or use their biometric information. Similarly, users never gave consent for such use. 

C. Defendants have collected, captured, received, obtained, stored and/or used 

biometric identifiers and/or information in violation of Section 15(b) of BIPA. 

35. Defendants’ use of Illinois TikTok App users’ face scans, including, but not limited 

to, scans of facial geometry and/or facial landmarks, violates all three prongs of Section 15(b) of 

BIPA. 

36. First, Defendants never informed TikTok users that they would collect, capture, 

receive, otherwise obtain, store, and/or use their face scans or any other biometric information. 

12 Maxing out the beauty filter, TikTok (last accessed April 28, 2020), https://www.tiktok.com/music/Maxing-outthe-beauty-filter-6705111720496614150.

13 Privacy Policy, TikTok (last updated Aug. 2018), 

https://web.archive.org/web/20180829183230/http:/www.tiktok.com/i18n/privacy#how-share (emphasis added). 

14 Privacy Policy, TikTok (last updated Jan. 1, 2020), https://www.tiktok.com/legal/privacy-policy?lang=en. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
Page 7 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

37. None of the following words occur at all in the App’s current U.S. Terms of Service 

(last updated February 2019) or Privacy Policy (last updated January 1, 2020): “biometric,” 

“facial,” “recognition,” “face,” “scan,” “faceprint,” “geometry,” or “landmark.” 

38. Defendants’ parent company, ByteDance, Ltd. knows how to inform users that it 

will collect facial landmarks and/or geometry. For example, the Privacy Policy of another 

ByteDance app, VigoVideo, explicitly states that the information the app collects and uses includes 

“your face landmarks or face contour for creation of face stickers.”15

39. Similarly, the privacy policy of Douyin, the app ByteDance uses inside China and 

the progenitor of TikTok, states, “We may also use part of the facial feature value 

information . . . to provide you with the face sticker function to provide better visual effects.”16

40. The U.S. TikTok App also allows users to add face stickers but fails to make the 

same disclosures. Moreover, the App also has a face tracker lens effect. With that, once the lens 

detects a user’s face through biometrics, it will automatically zoom in. 

41. Second, Defendants do not and have never informed TikTok App users of the 

specific purpose and length of time for which their face scans or other biometric information and 

identifiers are collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, stored, and/or used. 

42. In fact, the TikTok Privacy Policy for users over the age of thirteen residing in the 

United States does not disclose the length of time that any user content, much less biometric 

information, will be retained by Defendants. 

43. Third, Defendants never received a written release or consent from TikTok App 

users or their legal authorized representatives before Defendants began collecting, capturing, 

receiving, otherwise obtaining, storing, and/or using the face scans or other biometric information. 

15 Vigo-Privacy Policy, VigoVideo (last updated Jan. 1, 2020), 

https://www.vigovideo.net/privacy_policy?vigo_lang=en. 

16 Douyin Privacy Policy, Douyin (last updated Feb. 13, 2020), 

https://www.douyin.com/agreements/?id=6773901168964798477 (translated using Google Translate). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
Page 8 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

44. Defendants’ flagrant disregard for the privacy rights of the App’s users comes as 

no surprise. In the few short years of the App’s existence, Defendants have taken an evasive, often 

cavalier, approach to U.S. privacy laws. Defendants’ violation of BIPA is part of this pattern of 

abuse. 

45. For example, the App has been the subject of multiple lawsuits alleging violations 

of users’ privacy. One recent lawsuit alleged that the App targeted minor children and collected 

their personal identifying information without parental consent. Another lawsuit alleged that data 

collected in the App was transferred to Defendants’ corporate parent, ByteDance Ltd., 

headquartered in China. 

46. In 2019, Defendant TikTok settled a claim brought by the Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”), which alleged that TikTok violated the Children’s Online Privacy 

Protection Act. The $5.7 million settlement was, at that time, the largest penalty ever imposed for 

violations of children’s privacy.17 Two FTC commissioners went so far as to file a separate 

statement asserting that, in their view, TikTok’s misconduct “reflected the company’s willingness 

to pursue growth even at the expense of endangering children.”18

47. Currently, the United States is investigating the App’s collection of user data as a 

national security concern.19 Describing the TikTok App as a cyber threat, the United States Army 

banned its use on government phones in late 2019, and the Navy soon followed suit.20

48. Defendants’ readiness to sacrifice the privacy rights of the TikTok App’s users is 

particularly troubling given their demographic makeup, which consists of many minor users. 

17 Patrick Thomas, TikTok Settles with FTC Over Data Collection from Children, Wall Street J. (Feb. 27, 2019 at 

4:36 p.m.), https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-settles-with-ftc-over-data-collection-from-children11551303390?mod=article_inline. 

18 Farnoush Amiri, TikTok to Pay $5.7 Million Over Alleged Violation of Child Privacy Law, NBCNews (Feb. 27, 

2019 at 12:55 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-pay-5-7-million-over-alleged-violation-childprivacy-n977186. 

19 Roumeliotis, et al., supra n.9. 

20 Brian Barrett, Security News This Week: The Army Bans TikTok, Wired (Jan. 4, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.), 

https://www.wired.com/story/army-bans-tiktok-cloud-hopper-email-scam/. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
Page 9 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

D. Defendants’ failure to provide a written, publicly available policy regarding the 

retention and destruction of biometric information violated Section 15(a) of BIPA. 

49. Defendants have also violated Section 15(a) of BIPA. 

50. The TikTok App’s U.S. Terms of Service and Privacy Policy do not set forth any 

information regarding retention of biometric information or guidelines for the destruction of such 

information. 

51. Thus, in direct violation of Section 15(a), Defendants have not developed a written, 

publicly available policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently 

destroying TikTok App users’ biometric identifiers and biometric information. 

E. Plaintiffs’ Personal Experiences. 

52. Plaintiff P. S. is a minor and a resident of Illinois who brings this action by and 

through her guardian, Cherise Slate, a resident of Illinois. P. S. has been a registered user of TikTok 

since at least 2019. 

53. Since registering with TikTok, P. S. has uploaded and posted many videos to the 

App that include images of her face, and, upon information and belief, her face has appeared in 

other users’ uploaded videos. 

54. P. S. has also used facial filters in uploaded videos. 

55. Plaintiff M. T. W. is a minor and a resident of Illinois who brings this action by and 

through her guardian, Brenda Washington, a resident of Illinois. M. T. W. has been a registered 

user of TikTok since at least 2018. 

56. Since registering with TikTok, M. T. W. has uploaded and posted many videos to 

the App that include images of her face, and upon information and belief, her face has also 

appeared in other users’ uploaded videos. 

57. M. T. W. has also used facial filters in uploaded videos. 

58. Defendants have collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, stored, and/or 

used P.S.’s and M. T. W.’s face scans including, but not limited to, scans of their facial geometry 

and/or facial landmarks. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
Page 10 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

59. Neither P. S. and M. T. W., nor their legally authorized representatives, Cherise 

Slate and Brenda Washington, ever received notice that Defendants would collect, capture, 

receive, otherwise obtain, store, and/or use their face scans. 

60. Defendants never informed P. S. or M. T. W. or their legally authorized 

representatives of the specific purpose and length of time for which their face scans or any other 

biometric information would be collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, stored, and/or 

used. 

61. Neither P. S. and M. T. W. nor their legally authorized representatives ever signed 

a written release authorizing Defendants to collect, capture, receive, otherwise obtain, store, and/or 

use their face scans or any other biometric information. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

62. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following proposed class (the “Class”): 

Any user of the musical.ly App or the TikTok App who, while 

residing in Illinois, used face filters, face stickers, or the face tracker 

lens on an image or video of that user’s own face or whose face 

appeared in a video uploaded to the musical.ly App and/or the 

TikTok App while the user resided in Illinois. 

63. If additional information is obtained through further investigation and discovery, 

the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or amended 

complaint. 

64. Specifically excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants’ officers, 

directors, agents, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, and jointventurers; (iii) any entities controlled by Defendants; (iv) Defendants’ heirs, successors, assigns, 

or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants, their officers, or their directors; 

and (v) the judge assigned to this action and any member of that judge’s immediate family. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
Page 11 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

65. Ascertainability. Members of the Class are readily ascertainable because the Class 

is defined using objective criteria, such as geography and the specific uses of the app, so as to 

allow prospective members to determine if they are part of the Class. 

66. Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. At 

a minimum, the Class contains tens of thousands of members. Although the precise number of 

Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs, the true number of members of the Class is known by 

Defendants. 

67. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over 

questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Such questions include: 

a. whether Defendants collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, stored, 

and/or used biometric identifiers or biometric information from Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class; 

b. whether Defendants informed Plaintiffs and the members of the Class that they 

would be collecting, capturing, receiving, otherwise obtaining, storing, and/or using 

their biometric identifiers or biometric information; 

c. whether Defendants informed Plaintiffs and the members of the Class of the 

specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or 

biometric information would be collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, 

stored, and/or used; 

d. whether Defendants obtained a written release from Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Class authorizing Defendants to collect, capture, receive, otherwise obtain, 

store, and/or use their biometric identifiers and biometric information; 

e. whether Defendants used biometric identifiers and biometric information to 

identify Plaintiffs and the members of the Class; 

f. whether Defendants provided a publicly available written policy establishing a 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers 

and biometric information; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
Page 12 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

g. whether Defendants’ violations of BIPA were committed intentionally, recklessly, 

or negligently; 

h. whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to statutory damages 

under BIPA and the correct measure of those damages; and 

i. whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to declaratory and 

injunctive relief. 

68. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the other members of the Class 

because, among other things, Defendants collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, stored, 

and/or used their biometric information without informed consent in the exact same manner for 

each Class member. 

69. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in complex class actions and 

intend to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the Class. Further, Plaintiffs have no interests 

that are antagonistic to the Class. 

70. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by each individual member of the 

Class are relatively small compared to the burden and expense required to litigate a BIPA claim 

against Defendants. It would thus be impossible for members of the Class, on an individual basis, 

to obtain effective redress for the wrongs committed against them. 

71. Individualized litigation also risks inconsistent or contradictory judgments and 

increases the cost of legal resolution of this matter for all parties and for the court system. By 

contrast, the proposed class action presents far fewer management difficulties and offers the 

benefits of a single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
Page 13 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

CAUSES OF ACTION 

First Cause of Action 

Violations of 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. 

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class) 

72. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporate the foregoing 

allegations as if fully set forth herein. 

73. Defendants are “private entities” as defined by 740 ILCS 14/10. 

74. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class are individuals who had their 

biometric information collected, captured, received, obtained, stored, and/or used by Defendants 

through the TikTok App’s collection and use of their biometric identifiers. 

75. Defendants systematically collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained, 

stored, and/or used Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ biometric identifiers and information 

without first obtaining the written release required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3). 

76. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs or the other members of the Class in writing 

that their biometric identifiers and biometric information were being collected, captured, received, 

otherwise obtained, stored, and/or used on the App. Defendants also failed to inform Plaintiffs or 

the other members of the Class in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their 

biometric identifiers and biometric information were being collected, captured, received, otherwise 

obtained, stored, and/or used as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1)–(2). 

77. Additionally, Defendants possess the biometric identifiers or information of 

Plaintiffs and other members of the Class but do not publicly provide a retention schedule or 

guidelines for permanently destroying such identifiers or information, as required by 740 ILCS 

14/15(a). 

78. By collecting, capturing, receiving, otherwise obtaining, storing, and/or using 

Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ biometric identifiers and biometric information, 

Defendants violated the right of each Plaintiff and Class member to keep private these biometric 

identifiers and biometric information. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
Page 14 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

79. These privacy violations harmed Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class. 

80. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ violations of 740 ILCS 14/15(a) and 

(b) were intentional or reckless because Defendants deliberately designed and implemented the 

artificial intelligence tools and facial filters in the App that collect, capture, receive, otherwise 

obtain, store, and/or use biometric identifiers and biometric information.21 

81. Alternatively, Defendants’ BIPA violations were negligent because Defendants 

breached the applicable standard of care by failing to ensure that TikTok App users were informed 

of and consented to Defendants’ collecting, capturing, receiving, otherwise obtaining, storing, 

and/or using their biometric information and biometric identifiers. 

82. Individually and on behalf of the members of the proposed Class, Plaintiffs seek: 

(1) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class by requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA’s requirements for collecting, 

capturing, receiving, otherwise obtaining, storing, and/or using biometric identifiers and biometric 

information; (2) statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional and reckless violation of BIPA 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent 

violation pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other 

litigation expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, pray for a judgment 

against Defendants as follows: 

1. An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiffs as Class 

Representatives, and appointing Burns Charest LLP and Hausfeld LLP as Class Counsel; 

2. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, violate section 15(a)–(b) of 

BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.; 

3. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of 

21 Wells & Koh, supra n.10. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
Page 15 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent 

violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); 

4. Awarding injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(4) requiring 

Defendants to comply with BIPA by providing a publicly available retention schedule or 

guidelines for permanently destroying the TikTok app users’ biometric identifiers and biometric 

information and forcing Defendants to stop collecting, capturing, receiving, otherwise obtaining, 

storing, and/or using the biometric identifiers and biometric information of Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class without first obtaining their informed written consent; 

5. Awarding Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3); 

6. Awarding prejudgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 

7. Awarding any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, hereby demand a jury 

trial on all issues so triable. 

Dated: April 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Megan E. Jones 

Megan E. Jones (Cal. Bar No. 296274) 

Seth R. Gassman (Cal. Bar No. 311702) 

HAUSFELD LLP 

600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 633-1908 

mjones@hausfeld.com 

sgassman@hausfeld.com 

Michael D. Hausfeld 

James J. Pizzirusso 

HAUSFELD LLP 

1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: (202) 540-7200 

mhausfeld@hausfeld.com 

jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com 

(pro hac vices to be submitted) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
Page 16 of 16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

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

Will Thompson (Cal. Bar No. 289012) 

BURNS CHAREST LLP 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (469) 904-4550 

wthompson@burnscharest.com 

Warren T. Burns 

Daniel Charest 

Russell Herman 

BURNS CHAREST LLP 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (469) 904-4550 

wburns@burnscharest.com 

dcharest@burnscharest.com 

rherman@burnscharest.com 

(pro hac vices to be submitted) 

Korey A. Nelson 

Amanda K. Klevorn 

Patrick Murphree 

BURNS CHAREST LLP 

365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 

New Orleans, Louisiaa 70115 

Telephone: (504) 779-2845 

knelson@burnscharest.com 

aklevorn@burnscharest.com 

pmurphree@burnscharest.com 

(pro hac vices to be submitted) 

Jason M. Baer 

Casey C. Dereus 

Joshua A. Stein 

BAER LAW, LLC 

 3000 Kingman Street, Suite 200 

 Metairie, LA 70006 

 Telephone: (504) 372-0111 

 jbaer@baerlawllc.com 

 cdereus@baerlawllc.com 

 jstein@baerlawllc.com 

(pro hac vices to be submitted) 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Case: 1:20-cv-04724 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18