Walmart sued over alleged voiceprint collection from customer calls

Walmart has been accused of secretly converting Illinois customers’ telephone calls into biometric voiceprints, using AI to recognize callers and analyze their behavior without obtaining the written consent required by state law.

The proposed class action lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Carol J. Krupke and Jeanne Thomas.

The 15-page lawsuit alleges that Walmart records calls to individual stores, extracts distinguishing vocal characteristics, and creates mathematical templates that can later be used to identify callers.

The complaint, filed as Krupke et al. v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-09305, has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Martha M. Pacold. Walmart has not yet answered the allegations, and the court has made no findings regarding the company’s practices.

According to the plaintiffs, callers hear an automated message stating that the call and their voice “may be recorded for business purposes, including fraud prevention.”

The lawsuit argues that this warning is inadequate because it does not explain that Walmart allegedly creates and stores voiceprints, disclose how long they will be retained, or identify any third parties that may receive them.

The complaint alleges that, “Unbeknownst to consumers, such as Plaintiffs and Class Members … when consumers call into a Walmart customer service line, Walmart creates a voice print or biometric identifier which can be used to identify them in the future.”

“Specifically,” the suit alleges, “when a call connects, Walmart’s artificial intelligence system records the audio and isolates the speaker’s vocal characteristics. The AI then measures the physical and behavioral identifiers of a person’s voice, such as pitch, cadence, tone, and frequency spectrums which enables Walmart to build a unique mathematical template of the caller’s voice.”

The complaint further claims that Walmart’s system monitors changes in speech, modulation, and volume to assess frustration or urgency through what the complaint describes as “emotional tracking.”

Those technical allegations are made largely “upon information and belief.”

The complaint does not name Walmart’s alleged voice biometric vendor, identify the system supposedly creating the templates, or attach technical records demonstrating that calls to stores are converted into biometric identifiers.

Walmart’s June 18 privacy notice lists voiceprints among the biometric information it may collect.

It also states that Walmart collects personal information through call recording technology when customers speak with customer service and will process sensitive personal information with consent where required by law.

The notice, however, does not itself establish that every recorded customer service call is used to create a voiceprint.

Thomas alleges that she frequently calls Walmart stores in Vandalia and Effingham about prescriptions, automobile servicing, and product availability.

Krupke says she called the Freeport Walmart on February 18 and July 2, 2025, and May 1, 2026, and responded verbally rather than selecting options with a telephone keypad.

Both women allege that Walmart converted their voices into templates and used those templates during later calls. They say they never signed releases authorizing the collection, storage or disclosure of their voiceprints.

The proposed class includes Illinois citizens whose biometric information Walmart collected, obtained, or disclosed during the applicable limitations period.

Although the lawsuit centers on customer telephone calls, its proposed class definition is not expressly limited to voiceprints or callers.

The complaint also alleges that Walmart disclosed biometric information to third parties without consent and for profit. It does not identify a particular recipient, transaction, or payment involving either plaintiff’s voiceprint.

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) expressly defines a voiceprint as a biometric identifier. Before collecting biometric identifiers, a private company must provide written notice explaining what is being collected, its specific purpose, and the length of time it will be retained.

It must also obtain a written release.

The law separately prohibits companies from profiting from biometric information and generally bars disclosure without consent.

Companies must publish a retention policy and destroy biometric data when its original purpose has been satisfied or within three years of the person’s last interaction, whichever comes first.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction requiring Walmart to comply with BIPA, destruction or return of improperly retained information, attorneys’ fees, and damages of $1,000 for negligent violations or $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations.

A 2024 amendment limits the potential accumulation of damages. Repeated collection of the same person’s biometric information through the same method is treated as one violation of the collection provision, rather than a separate violation each time the person interacts with the system.

Repeated disclosures to the same recipient through the same method are similarly treated as a single violation.

The plaintiffs estimate that the proposed class contains hundreds of people and contend that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Whether the case can proceed on behalf of a class, whether Walmart actually created identifying voiceprints, and whether its notices and consent procedures complied with BIPA will have to be established through litigation.

Article Topics

biometric identifiers  |  Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)  |  data protection  |  Illinois  |  voice biometrics  |  voiceprints  |  Walmart