Last week, Apple Inc. lost a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the company’s AirTag devices are being used as a tool by stalkers to track victims. According to a San Francisco District Court judge, three plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit made sufficient claims to survive Apple’s motion to dismiss. The case is centered on allegations that the AirTags have problems with their safety features, allowing for the devices to be abused. Moreover, the suit charges that Apple was aware of the potential risks posed by its AirTags, and that the company failed to do anything about the risks. These are just some of the allegations based on California law regulating tracking devices. Let’s get into the details.
Background
Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against Apple AirTags in the Northern California District Court last December. AirTags are tracking devices developed by Apple designed to act as key finders that help people find personal objects. The lawsuit against Apple alleged that the AirTags have become weapons misused by stalkers to track and locate victims and that Apple is liable for victims’ injuries because the company knew of the dangers posed by its tracking devices. According to reporting by Bloomberg, “about three dozen women and men filed the suit [and] alleged that Apple was warned of the risks posed by its AirTags.” According to the complaint, “[t]he concerns [about the device] were well founded. Immediately after the AirTag’s release, and consistently since, reports have proliferated of people finding AirTags placed in their purses, in or on their cars, and even sewn into the lining of their clothes, by stalkers in order to track their whereabouts. The consequences have been as severe as possible: at least two reported murders have occurred in which the murderer used an AirTag to track the victim.”
While dismissing the bulk of the “roughly three dozen claims in the class-action,” Judge Vince Chhabria “denied Apple’s bid to have the suit thrown out based on three plaintiffs’ claims alleging that when they were stalked, the problems with the AirTags safety features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their injuries.” The original complaint alleged that the company is liable under California privacy laws if its products are used to “allow stalkers [to] follow their victims’ movements in real-time and to undo any attempt on the part of the victim to evade or hide from the stalker.”
What’s in the Complaint?
In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that AirTags “which allows users to track items that are attached to it using the Find My network on Apple devices, [have] become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers pointing at the device’s affordability with a price point of $29.”
Plaintiffs alleged that Apple’s practices amounted to acts of negligence, negligence per se, intrusion-upon-seclusion, and product liability. The complaint further alleged that Apple’s actions constituted unjust enrichment and violated, among other laws, California’s constitutional right to privacy, California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and New York General Business.
The plaintiffs seek statutory damages, actual damages, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief against Apple. They ask the court to correct “Apple’s practice of releasing an unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce, misrepresenting the harms associated therewith, and facilitating the unwanted and unconsented to location tracking of Plaintiffs and Class members.”
Implications for Future Developments in Tracking Technology
The class action lawsuit against Apple highlights the dangers posed by technology created to track objects when such tech is then weaponized against people. Apple released its AirTags product intended to help “solve the everyday problem of losing personal belongings.” This lawsuit shows that these devices, while meant to be helpful, can lead to dangerous outcomes when misused for criminal activity. According to the complaint, before AirTags were released, “advocates warned Apple to rethink the product due to the risks of it being used as a device for stalking.”
In response to the lawsuit, Apple issued a statement explaining that AirTags were “designed to help people locate their personal belongings, not to track people or another person’s property, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms any malicious use of our products.” The judge’s decision allowed the case to proceed, stating that “Apple may ultimately be right that California law did not require it to do more to diminish the ability of stalkers to use AirTags effectively,” but held “that determination cannot be made at this early stage.” The judge’s decision indicates that courts may be cracking down on the unintended consequences of new technology in the stream of commerce. Further, this could also mean that jurors may soon have a say in whether tech companies should be held liable when their products are misused.
Ready to Incorporate AI Into Your Workflow?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-driven, state trial court research and analytics platform. We make the fragmented U.S. state trial court system searchable through a single interface, offering comprehensive insights into judges, cases, and opposing counsel. Effortlessly track lawsuits across states and stay updated with ongoing litigation documents. Request a demo today and elevate your legal practice with our intuitive analytics and API.
Sources:
https://www.classaction.org/media/hughes-et-al-v-apple-inc.pdf
Music: Disruptor’s Dance by Anka Mason
Blog Narration: Anka Mason
