An Illinois federal judge has certified a class of roughly 1.2 million users of Amazon's Alexa in litigation accusing the e-commerce giant of unlawfully collecting their biometric voice data, allowing two people to serve as representatives for those in the state for whom Amazon allegedly created voiceprints.

In a redacted version of U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama's Nov. 6 order, filed Wednesday, the judge certified a class of "all natural persons in Illinois for whom Amazon created a voiceprint on or after June 27, 2014."

Judge Valderrama found, for instance, that Alexa users in the suit satisfied a requirement that a class action be superior to other methods of adjudicating a case.

"The class at issue is one of nearly 1.2 million people," Judge Valderrama wrote. "The putative class challenges actions taken by Amazon that apply uniformly. A case-by-case resolution of the class members' claims would be an inefficient use of judicial and party resources."

In granting class certification, Judge Valderrama allowed two of the three proposed class representatives to represent the class.

Judge Valderrama said Illinois residents Jason Stebbins and Christopher Block's claims are typical of the class, as they are "enrolled users in Amazon Alexa, allegedly suffered the same statutory violations, and are entitled to the same statutory damages per violation."

Michael Gunderson, however, is not an adequate class representative because he is "subject to arguable defenses that the court finds to be atypical of the class," Judge Valderrama said.

Amazon intends to appeal the court's class certification order, according to a joint status report filed on Nov. 14. If Amazon's petition for permission to appeal is granted, Amazon intends to seek a stay of the case until the Seventh Circuit issues a ruling on whether class certification was proper, according to the report.

The parties are "discussing potential mediation with a private mediator."

The class action alleges Amazon violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires companies that collect or otherwise obtain an individual's biometric data to have the individual's informed, written consent. BIPA also bars companies in possession of biometric data from selling, leasing or otherwise profiting from the data and from disclosing or disseminating the data without consent.

Judge Valderrama had sent the case to arbitration in early 2022 after Amazon removed the case from state to federal court.

In 2023, the Alexa users who lodged the suit survived Amazon's motion to dismiss their second amended complaint.

Judge Valderrama granted class certification on Nov. 6, though his opinion and order remained under seal until the redacted version was filed Wednesday.

Amazon tried to disqualify Block and Stebbins as class representatives, including by challenging Block's relationship with class counsel and Stebbins' credibility.

In granting class certification, Judge Valderrama said the fact that Block was involved in prior lawsuits represented by class counsel "is not enough to make him inadequate to represent the class."

According to Judge Valderrama's opinion, Block's only relationship with the law firm KamberLaw was when the firm served as local counsel in several of his Americans with Disabilities Act cases in 2019. Block also didn't communicate with anyone from the firm for this case until spring 2023, according to the opinion.

As for Stebbins, Judge Valderrama agreed with Amazon that Stebbins may have a credibility issue. But what matters is whether the credibility issue is likely to harm the class, Judge Valderrama said.

"The court does not find that it 'is likely to harm the [c]lass' and therefore does not warrant his disqualification as a class representative," Judge Valderrama wrote.

Judge Valderrama also concluded that the issue of whether Amazon collected, captured or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or information is a "common question that predominates over any individual inquiries." He said that whether Amazon did so without first obtaining written informed consent also met that requirement.

Whether Amazon actually sold, leased, traded or otherwise made money off of a person's biometric information is also a "merits-based question not to be resolved at this juncture," Judge Valderrama wrote.

He said the property question is whether the evidence used to decide the question will involve common evidence across the class members.

"Plaintiffs argue that common evidence will be used to answer this question, and the court agrees," Judge Valderrama wrote.

Counsel for the class and Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The class is represented by Michael Aschenbrener, Scott A. Kamber and Deborah Kravitz of KamberLaw, Gerald J. Bekkerman, Bradley N. Pollock, Sean P. Murray and Marc A. Taxman of Taxman Pollock Murray & Bekkerman LLC, James Frickleton of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader, Thomas P. Rosenfeld and Kevin P. Green of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC and Brandon M. Wise of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane & Conway LLP.

Amazon is represented by Elizabeth B. Herrington and J. Warren Rissier of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case in Michael Gunderson, et al., v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., case number 1:19-cv-05061, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.