{"id":2741,"date":"2026-02-10T10:53:35","date_gmt":"2026-02-10T14:53:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2741"},"modified":"2026-02-10T10:53:36","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T14:53:36","slug":"illinois-state-court-grants-certification-of-bipa-class-comprised-of-customers-who-used-apples-siri-function","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/02\/10\/illinois-state-court-grants-certification-of-bipa-class-comprised-of-customers-who-used-apples-siri-function\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois State Court Grants Certification Of BIPA Class Comprised Of Customers Who Used Apple\u2019s Siri Function"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>In Zaluda et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2019 CH 11771, (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Jan. 29, 2026), Judge Michael T. Mullen of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted <\/a>class certification to a class of plaintiffs alleging that Apple\u2019s Siri function violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (\u201cBIPA\u201d).\u00a0 In doing so, Judge Mullen delivered a significant setback to Apple\u2019s efforts to block the certification of a purported class that could number in the millions.\u00a0 Pre-certification discovery established that there were approximately 2.6 to 3.9 million Siri users in Illinois during the relevant class period. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision represents the latest success for the plaintiffs\u2019 bar in a string of victories in Illinois privacy class actions (as we previously blogged about <\/em>here<\/a> and here<\/a>) and underscores that even the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world face substantial legal exposure arising from their biometric data collection, retention, and use practices.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple\u2019s voice-activated digital assistant, \u201cSiri,\u201d uses speech recognition technology to understand and respond to user inquiries and to perform user-requested tasks. Siri comes pre-loaded on a wide range of Apple devices, including iPhones, iPads, HomePods, Apple Watches, Macbooks, iMacs, and AirPods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Siri relies on an automatic speech recognition (\u201cASR\u201d) process that \u201cautomatically and uniformly computes biometric feature vectors [] from every user utterance for every Siri user,\u201d and that process functions uniformly across all Apple devices. Id. <\/em>at 4. These \u201cfeature vectors\u201d are capable of being used to identify a speaker. Id. <\/em>at 3. During the relevant class period, Apple\u2019s privacy policies and disclosures applicable to Siri users were uniform and did not include the notice, consent, or retention policy disclosures required by the BIPA. Id. <\/em>at 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple sorts its records to identify device users based on their state of residence or telephone number area code. Id. <\/em>at 5. Apple\u2019s former Senior Director of Siri testified at his deposition that Apple tracks the percentage of device owners who enable Siri and that approximately 20% to 30% of all device owners do so. Based on those figures, Apple estimated that there were approximately 2.6 to 3.9 million Siri users in Illinois during the relevant period at issue in the lawsuit. Id. <\/em>at 3, 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Against this backdrop, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Apple violated the BIPA by collecting, capturing, storing and\/or disseminating \u201cbiometric feature vectors\u201d and\/or \u201cvoiceprints\u201d of millions of Illinois residents who used Siri on any Apple device without first providing the required disclosures, obtaining informed written consent, or maintaining publicly available written data retention and destruction guidelines. Id<\/em>. at 2. Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all Illinois residents who used Siri on any Apple device on or after September 19, 2014. Id<\/em>. at 5. Notably, pre-certification discovery revealed that there were more than 13 million unique Apple IDs associated with a billing address in Illinois and an Apple device capable of running Siri. Id<\/em>. at 5 n.20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Mullen systematically rejected Apple\u2019s arguments that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification under 735 ILCS 5\/2-801. Given the size of the purported class, Apple stipulated to numerosity for purposes of class certification. Id. <\/em>at 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to the adequacy requirement, Apple argued that the named plaintiffs were inadequate representatives because they lacked sufficient knowledge about the case and because three of them no longer reside in Illinois. Id. <\/em>at 18. The Court rejected those arguments. After reviewing the named plaintiffs\u2019 deposition testimony, the Court found that each plaintiff demonstrated a basic understanding of the claims and emphasized that class representatives are not \u201crequired to be experts.\u201d  Id. <\/em>The Court further concluded that each named plaintiff was an Illinois resident at some point during the proposed class period and that there was no evidence of any conflict between the interests of any named plaintiff and the interests of absent class members. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also found that common questions of law and fact predominated over any questions affecting individual members, and that a class action was an appropriate method for adjudicating the claims.  Id<\/em>. at 17, 22. Apple argued that commonality and predominance were lacking because: (1) Siri is optional and not all Apple device users enable it; (2) Siri users do not all activate Siri in precisely the same manner; and (3) Siri\u2019s speech recognition functions changed during the class period. Id. <\/em>The Court rejected each contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the Court explained that users who never enabled Siri are not members of the proposed class, rendering that argument irrelevant. Id<\/em>. Second, the Court concluded that regardless of how Siri is activated, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Siri\u2019s ASR process uniformly generates feature vectors that are capable of identifying a speaker from all user utterances. Id. <\/em>The Court further reasoned that the optional Siri features cited by Apple do not undermine plaintiffs\u2019 claims based on Siri\u2019s ASR process and, at most, could give rise to additional BIPA claims for users who opted in to those features. Id. <\/em>at 11-12. Third, the Court found that alleged changes to Siri\u2019s speech recognition functions during the class period did not alter the uniform operation of the ASR process and therefore did not defeat commonality or predominance. Id. <\/em>at 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple also contended that class membership could only be established through \u201cindividualized\u201d proof, which it argued defeated certification. Id. <\/em>at 14. The Court disagreed. Citing Svoboda v. Amazon.com, Inc., <\/em>2024 WL 1363718, *10 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2024) (which we previously blogged about here<\/a>), the Court held that issues concerning how class members are identified are matters of class management, not class certification. Id. <\/em>at 16. The Court explained that, if liability is established, class members could submit affidavits attesting to their Siri use in Illinois, which could then be cross-checked against Apple IDs, home addresses, IP addresses, and geolocation data. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the Court concluded that proceeding on a class basis was the most efficient and fair method of adjudication. Id<\/em>. at 22. The Court noted that Apple\u2019s implicit alternative (i.e<\/em>., requiring millions of individual BIPA lawsuits by Illinois Siri users) would impose a severe burden the judicial system. Id<\/em>. at 21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision serves as a reminder of the significant risks associated with collecting or retaining biometric information without BIPA-compliant policies and practices. As Zaluda<\/em> illustrates, the larger the company, the larger the potential class size (and the greater exposure to statutory damages). Although the ultimate size of the certified class remains to be determined, it is likely to number in the millions. Companies of all sizes should view this ruling as a wake-up call regarding the substantial liability that can result from noncompliance with Illinois\u2019 biometric privacy laws.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0In Zaluda et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2019 CH 11771, (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Jan. 29, 2026), Judge Michael T. Mullen of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted class certification to a class of plaintiffs alleging that Apple\u2019s … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois State Court Grants Certification Of BIPA Class Comprised Of Customers Who Used Apple\u2019s Siri Function”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,145,12],"class_list":["post-2741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bipa"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":145,"user_id":740,"is_guest":0,"slug":"hhryan","display_name":"Hayley Ryan","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":12,"user_id":578,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tzzmick","display_name":"Tyler Z. Zmick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/zmicktyler-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2741"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}