Please try another search
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: The Apple Inc. logo is seen hanging at the entrance to the Apple store on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, New York, U.S., October 16, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo/File Photo
By Jonathan Stempel
(Reuters) -Apple Inc has been sued by two women who said its AirTag devices have made it easier for their former partners and other stalkers to track down victims.
In a proposed class action filed on Monday in San Francisco federal court, the women said Apple has been unable to protect people from unwanted trafficking through AirTag since launching what it called the "stalker proof" device in April 2021.
Starting at $29, AirTags are 1-1/4 inches (3.2 cm) in diameter, and intended to be slipped into or attached to keys, wallets, backpacks and other items so people can find them when they are lost.
But privacy experts and law enforcement have said some people use Airtags for criminal or malicious purposes.
The plaintiffs called AirTag "the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers," and said it has been linked to murders this year of women from Akron, Ohio and Indianapolis.
Monday's lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for U.S. owners of iOS or Android-based devices who were tracked by AirTag or are "at risk" of being stalked because of Apple's alleged negligence.
Apple did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment.
The Cupertino, California-based company has acknowledged that "bad actors" have tried misusing Airtags.
In February, Apple announced planned upgrades to make it easier to find the devices, and warn users faster that unknown AirTags might be "traveling with them."
One plaintiff in Monday's lawsuit, Lauren Hughes, said her former boyfriend learned where she had moved to avoid him after placing an AirTag in her car's wheel well.
She said he later posted a photo online of a taco truck from her new neighborhood, and included a winking emoji with the hashtag "#airt2.0."
The other plaintiff, Jane Doe, said her estranged husband tracked her after putting an AirTag in their child's backpack.
The case is Hughes et al v. Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL), U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-07668.
Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?
By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.
%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List
Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.
I feel that this comment is:
Thank You!
Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Add a Comment
We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:
Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.
Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.