2:21-cv-00750
W.D. Wash.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs sued Amazon, alleging Alexa devices secretly recorded individuals (including false wakes) without sufficient notice, violating six states’ wiretap laws and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
- Plaintiffs sought certification of six state-specific classes of non-registrants (those who lived with Alexa registrants but never registered themselves) for wiretap claims and a nationwide class of registrants for CPA claims.
- Amazon argued class members either consented, suffered no harm, or could not be managed as a class due to individualized issues such as consent, standing, and damages.
- The court analyzed whether the requirements of FRCP 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and 23(b) (predominance, superiority, injunctive relief) for class certification were satisfied.
- After reviewing evidence and arguments, the court granted certification for the national registrant class for CPA claims (seeking damages and injunctive relief), but denied certification for state law wiretap claims for non-registrants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (for all classes) | Most (almost all) putative class members suffered actionable recording injury | Many class members never recorded or consented; thus, lack standing and inclusion unmanageable | Standing concerns do not preclude certification, managed via Rule 23(b)(3) |
| Typicality (non-registrants, CA & PA) | Named reps typical of class experiences | Named reps had Alexa accounts/registered; not typical of non-registrant experience | CA & PA non-registrant classes cannot be certified (reps not typical) |
| Predominance (non-registrant classes) | Common issues (Amazon’s intent, device design) predominate over individual issues | Individual consent/privacy expectation/injury require case-by-case analysis; individualized damages unmanageable | Predominance not satisfied—individual issues outweigh common ones |
| Predominance & Superiority (registrant class, CPA) | Common issues on Amazon conduct prevail; damages and standing can be addressed | Some registrants never recorded, gifted devices, or opted out; injury/causation not classwide | Certification GRANTED for damages/injunctive relief class under CPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (explains class certification commonality and predominance under Rule 23)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (damage model must match theory of liability in class actions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (predominance requirement for Rule 23(b)(3) classes)
- Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (commonality and predominance under Rule 23 in multi-state class actions)
- Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (individualized damages calculations do not defeat class certification)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- TransUnion v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (standing for class action members and damages)
- Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (individualized damages do not preclude class certification)