By Ashley Robinson Walmart is facing two proposed class actions in Illinois over claims that its automated telephone system collects customers’ biometric voiceprints without the notice and consent required by state law. The cases raise a timely question for retailers using artificial intelligence: does telling callers that a conversation may be recorded provide enough warning when the system may also create a biometric identifier from their voice?
The federal case, Smith v. Walmart Inc., was filed on July 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A separate state case, Wilson v. Walmart Inc., was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Both remain at an early stage, and the allegations have not been proven.
What the Customers Say Happened
Amber Smith, the plaintiff in the federal case, says she called an Illinois Walmart store twice in December 2025 and once in July 2026. According to her complaint, the calls passed through an automated, AI-powered voice system that captured, stored and used her voiceprint. She claims Walmart did not provide the required written explanation or obtain her written consent before collecting the alleged biometric data.
The complaint acknowledges that callers hear a message saying the call and their voice may be recorded for business purposes, including fraud detection. Smith argues that this statement does not clearly explain that a voiceprint is allegedly being created, how long it will be kept or when it will be destroyed. She also contends that a general online privacy policy is not a substitute for the written notice and release required by Illinois law.
Anthony Wilson’s state-court lawsuit advances similar claims. It also alleges that Walmart may disclose voiceprint information to cloud, data-storage or technology vendors involved in operating the customer-service system. That alleged disclosure forms a separate part of his claim.
Why a Voiceprint Is More Than a Call Recording
An ordinary call recording preserves spoken words and sound. A voiceprint is generally described as a digital template based on characteristics of a person’s voice that may be used for identification or authentication. Illinois law expressly includes a voiceprint within its definition of a biometric identifier.
That distinction is central to the litigation. The plaintiffs are not simply objecting to customer-service calls being recorded. They claim Walmart’s system processes voice characteristics in a way that creates biometric information. Walmart may dispute whether its system actually produces a legally protected voiceprint, whether callers received adequate notice, or whether the challenged processing falls within the statute. Those issues will require evidence about how the technology works.
What Illinois Biometric Privacy Law Requires
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, commonly called BIPA, requires a private company to take specific steps before collecting biometric identifiers. It must provide written notice that the information is being collected or stored, explain the purpose and length of the collection and obtain a written release. A company possessing biometric data must also maintain a publicly available retention and destruction policy.
BIPA separately restricts disclosure of biometric information to another party without consent or another recognized legal basis. This provision is especially important in Wilson’s case because modern automated phone systems often involve outside software, hosting and fraud-prevention providers. The lawsuit must still prove that a disclosure occurred and involved information covered by BIPA.
Damages Could Be Significant but Are Not Guaranteed
The plaintiffs request class certification, an injunction requiring compliant practices, attorneys’ fees and statutory damages. BIPA permits damages of $1,000 for a negligent violation and $5,000 for an intentional or reckless violation, or actual damages when greater. Those figures do not mean that every caller is automatically entitled to money.
Illinois amended BIPA in 2024 to limit repeated collection of the same person’s biometric information by the same method to one violation for recovery purposes. The change reduced the possibility of damages multiplying every time a person used the same system. The size of any potential recovery would still depend on class certification, the number of eligible callers, proof of a statutory violation and whether the conduct was negligent, intentional or reckless.
What Happens Next?
Walmart will have an opportunity to answer the complaints, challenge their legal sufficiency and contest class certification. Discovery could examine the design of the phone system, whether it generated voice templates, what disclosures callers received, how long information was retained and whether vendors obtained access to it.
For now, these are lawsuits rather than settlements. No court has certified a class, found Walmart liable, approved compensation or opened a claims process. Illinois residents who called Walmart stores do not need to submit a claim form at this stage. Any future settlement notice would identify the official administrator, eligibility dates and filing deadline.
The broader importance of the cases extends beyond Walmart. Retailers increasingly use automated voices, fraud detection and identity tools in routine customer interactions. The litigation may help define when a recorded voice becomes a regulated voiceprint and what businesses must tell consumers before AI systems analyze it.