Apple Sued After AirTag Stalking Occurs

Apple was sued in Illinois federal court by plaintiff Jane Doe M.R.1 who alleged that the Apple AirTags allow for stalking and unwanted tracking. AirTags work by sending out Bluetooth signals that are noticed by millions of Apple products nearby that make up the Find My network. This network sends the missing thing’s location back to both Apple and the owner of the AirTag. Because there are so many Apple products nearby, AirTag is a more reliable transmitter of location than competitors are. If you were subject to stalking as the result of unwanted AirTag tracking, you should call the seasoned product liability attorneys of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable claim. Billions have been recovered in cases across the nation with which we’ve been involved. 

Call Moll Law Group About Your Lawsuit

Even before AirTag was released, according to Jane Doe, advocates asked the company to reconsider the product since it would likely be used for stalking. Her complaint is not the first such complaint. According to Jane Doe’s lawsuit, from April 20, 2021- April 5, 2024, Apple received over 40,000 AirTag stalking reports and more than1,000 complaints each month on average about the AirTags.

In Florida, a woman sued Apple in federal court claiming that the company’s negligence led to her stalking and that Apple falsely represented to the public that the AirTag was stalker-proof and safe.

In Oregon, a domestic violence survivor sued Apple in federal court accusing the company of negligence and defective design after the AirTag was allegedly used to track her to a confidential shelter. She argues that the devices were rushed to market even though Apple knew they didn’t have adequate safeguards to keep abusers from monitoring their victims without knowledge. She is suing under theories of negligence, strict product liability, consumer fraud, and invasion of privacy.

The theories that apply to this type of case vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To establish negligence, a plaintiff would need to show: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach caused injuries, and (4) the injuries resulted in damages. Strict liability tends to be more favorable to plaintiffs requiring proof only of: (1) a manufacturing, design, or marketing defect, (2) the defect causing injuries, and (3) damages. In this case, since it’s alleged that AirTags have inadequate safeguards, it’s likely that the defect alleged would be a design defect. These are flaws that occur in all units of the product.

If we are able to establish Apple’s negligence or strict liability for AirTag stalking, we may be able to recover compensatory damages. These are damages intended to put you back in the position you would have been in had you not been stalked. They can include compensation for both economic and noneconomic losses. Economic losses may include medical bills, therapy bills, out-of-pocket costs, and wage loss. Noneconomic losses can include pain and suffering, lost earning capacity, loss of consortium, and mental anguish.

Discuss Your Injuries With a Product Liability Attorney

If you were harmed by AirTag stalking, please call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to find out whether you have a viable claim. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.