Apple Faces Class Cert. Bid Over AirTag StalkingRisks

By Gina Kim

Law360 (June 10, 2025, 6:19 PM EDT) -- Victims stalked by abusers of Apple's AirTag asked a California federal judge to certify their proposed class action, arguing their negligence and product liability claims can be adjudicated in one fell swoop since they rest on the same question of whether the tag's design unreasonably put them at risk of harm.

In a 39-page motion filed June 6, plaintiffs who accuse Apple Inc. of defectively designing its AirTag in a way that put them at risk of being tracked without their consent argue that class certification is appropriate as the challenged conduct impacted all iOS and non-iOS users alike who were tracked via the AirTags. This includes non-iOS users who downloaded Apple's Tracker Detect app for Android.

"All class representatives allege a common pattern of wrongdoing: Apple's negligent design, marketing and release of a product that unreasonably endangered users, along with its resulting breach of legal duties," the plaintiffs say. "Each representative will rely on the same legal theories and common body of evidence to prove their claims, the claims of the class, and to seek identical relief — namely, injunctive relief in the form of business practice changes regarding AirTags and their safety features."

The accusations in the suit are critical to the plaintiffs' liability theories behind the negligence, product liability and California Unfair Competition Law claims throughout the classes, the plaintiffs say. These issues can be resolved on a class-wide basis, even for non-iOS users, with a single common question: whether the design, marketing and launch of the AirTags unreasonably placed the plaintiffs at risk of stalking; whether the misuse of the device was foreseeable by Apple; and whether Apple violated its duty to implement sufficient guardrails to the device, the motion says.

"First, Apple failed to protect non-iOS users from AirTag stalking for over two years by providing no automated alerts," the motion says. "Its only solution, the Tracker Detect app, was released eight months after the AirTag, required manual scans and offered no background detection, leaving the non-iOS users (nearly half of U.S. mobile users) vulnerable."

The motion continues, "Apple delayed collaborating with Google until mid-2023, asserted patent rights that could deter broader safety efforts, and prioritized battery life and control over user safety despite having the ability to implement background scanning earlier."

Furthermore, among iOS and non-iOS users alike, every plaintiff in the proposed classes was affected by the device's sound alert feature, which is too quiet, indistinct and can be easily muffled, especially in loud environments, the motion states.

Misusers could also disable the sound alert feature, the plaintiffs note, adding that the device doesn't help victims locate it, especially if they're hearing impaired or can't discern what exactly the sound alert means. The varying degrees in the seriousness, scope or manifestation of the plaintiffs' emotional distress also doesn't matter, the plaintiffs argue. They also argue it's immaterial that the class representatives suffered different economic injuries. One of the named plaintiffs had to move back to Ireland, sell her car at a loss and leave her career in the United States because of the abuse stemming from the AirTag, while another plaintiff had to move twice, according to the motion.

However, those issues don't defeat the notion that the claims are typical among the classes, the plaintiffs say, because the case rests on Apple's actions and liability theories rather than the particular injuries affecting the victims.

Friday's certification bid is the latest development in a lawsuit the plaintiffs first filed in December 2022, claiming the AirTag has become the "weapon of choice" for stalkers to track their victims, but that hasn't stopped the tech giant from touting the device as "stalker-proof" while ignoring concerns of people at risk of abuse.

The AirTag, which is small enough to be slipped into a purse or hidden in a vehicle, emits signals that can be picked up via Bluetooth and sent to the tag's owner.

In their Friday motion, the plaintiffs point out that California law applies to all the class members' claims, as Apple's software agreement binds them to it. This includes Android users who downloaded Apple's Tracker Detect application, which contains California choice-of-law provisions.

California also has significant contacts with the plaintiffs' claims because the AirTag's key designers are based here, and the alleged misconduct originated here, the motion adds, noting that Apple is based in California and the AirTag was designed in the state. Apple also made business decisions related to the device's design and commercialization in California, the motion adds.

A plaintiff's state of residence — whether it's California or some other state — doesn't matter either; what matters is that Apple's alleged conduct related to the AirTag, which gave rise to the suit's claims, occurred in California, the plaintiffs argue.

"It was Apple's conduct in California that enabled plaintiffs and class members — resident and nonresident alike — to be stalked in their home states or in any other state or country where they traveled," the motion says. "In point of fact, the 'last event' occurs in perpetuity in California, because Apple's ongoing acts and omissions in refraining to make improvements in its software, hardware and firmware to prevent and disable unwanted tracking means that its unlawful conduct continues to this day — long after the acts of any stalker."

A hearing on the certification bid is set for Sept. 4.

"We're honored to seek to represent all of the victims of AirTag stalking across the country," plaintiffs' co-counsel Gillian L. Wade of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP told Law360 in an emailed statement Tuesday afternoon. "Our clients — whose chilling and often heartbreaking experiences are just a sample of the lives that have been upended by Apple — are committed to fighting this battle on behalf of every victim, and we're deeply grateful to them for their bravery and their perseverance."

Representatives for Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Wade Kilpela Slade LLP and Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP. Apple is represented by Morrison Foerster LLP.

The case is Lauren Hughes et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 3:22-cv-07668, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Editing by Kristen Becker.

Newer Post >