A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class action lawsuit Monday against Apple over its controversial butterfly keyboard. Although the court granted the motion on March 8, the parties had 11 days to redact the document before its release.

In 2015, Apple released the butterfly keyboard: a 40 percent thinner keyboard that reduced the bulk and weight of the tech giant’s MacBook laptops. The new keyboards were integrated into 16 MacBook models over several years. However, customers returned machines with butterfly keyboards more often than earlier iterations of the product due to poor performance.

Judge Edward Davila ruled that the potential class of defective MacBook purchasers meets all four requirements in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation. Although the number of laptops sold by Apple with butterfly keyboards is redacted in the order, the court ruled that the class is “sufficiently numerous” and meets the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity requirement. The case meets the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) because the plaintiffs set forth issues that are common to the class, such as whether the butterfly keyboard “was defective and whether Apple was aware of that defect, among others.”

Rule 23(a)(3) requires typicality, meaning “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The court found that the representative plaintiffs’ claims are “reasonably co-extensive” with absent class members, and typicality is met. Lastly, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that named plaintiffs adequately represent the class as a whole. The court was “satisfied” that the named plaintiffs could represent class members who purchased each of the sixteen MacBook models with the butterfly keyboard in each of seven states.

Davila also ruled that the case is appropriate for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because common issues predominate the case rather than issues individual to each plaintiff. In closing, the court officially appointed eleven plaintiffs as representatives of the class and subclasses. The parties now have twenty-one days to submit a proposed plan of Notice to the court.