In Apple AirTag stalking case, judge denies tech giant's attempt to dismiss class-action lawsuit

A judge has denied Apple’s motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that says stalkers are using its AirTag devices to track victims — and that the tech giant hasn’t done enough to prevent them.

Apple’s $29 AirTags have become popular items since their 2021 release, helping users keep tabs on the location of anything from lost keys to wallets and luggage. But stalkers have used AirTags and similar products to follow people without their consent.

In December 2022, Apple was sued by dozens of people who said they were stalked by AirTag users. They said Apple failed to mitigate such dangers and should have done more to protect victims — saying AirTags “revolutionized the scope, breadth and ease of location-based stalking” and asserting that its safety features are inadequate.

Apple tried to get the suit thrown out last year, saying the company “took proactive steps to try to deter misuse” and that it shouldn’t bear liability for injuries caused by third parties. But San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed that motion on March 15.

Chhabria ruled that, while most of the class-action plaintiffs’ claims were “inadequately pled,” three can proceed for negligence and strict product liability under California law. The remaining claims were dismissed.

“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 that determination cannot be made at this early stage,” Chhabria wrote.

Chhabria detailed arguments from both Apple and the plaintiffs in the ruling. Included were accounts from the three remaining claims of victims being stalked by former partners or others through AirTags that they said were attached to their cars, resulting in emotional and sometimes financial harm.

All three of these cases involve “purported defects” of AirTags that made it harder for the victims to understand the tracking and quickly stop it, according to the court ruling. Also, notifications were unclear or delayed.

Apple and attorneys representing the company did not respond to requests for comment.