BlogLine

California plaintiffs take a bite of the Apple – PFAS litigation reaches Apple Watches

1/29/25

pic

By: Joshua G. Ferguson and James M. Mathew

Two California residents have filed a lawsuit against Apple for its use of PFAS in the manufacturing of wristbands used for its Apple Watches. The two California residents filed a 64-page class action complaint against the tech company, claiming unfair business practices by allegedly misrepresenting the hazard caused by its product. In a nine-count complaint, plaintiffs allege Apple participated in various violations of California state laws, as well as common law torts including Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Unjust Enrichment.  

PFAS, also known as “Forever Chemicals,” are stable compounds and less likely to break down in nature. The stability of the chemicals allows the products created with them to repel and be resistant to water, oils, and many other materials. PFAS are used in a variety of industries including, but not limited to, cookware, clothing, and cleaning supplies. As the use of PFAS is expansive, recently many similar lawsuits have arisen for a wide variety of products.  

This lawsuit claims the use of PFAS in Apple’s Apple Sport Band, Apple Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band. According to the plaintiffs, Apple markets its Apple Watch as a tool used to live a healthier life. Plaintiffs claim that, in addition to the omission of any reference to PFAS, Apple made representations when marketing the Watch, including,  

  • “When you wear it, you get meaningful health insights,” 
  • “Peace of mind on your wrist,” 
  • “Tracks daily activity,” 
  • “The same innovative thinking that goes into creating the products you love goes into our environment initiatives. And as we design durable products, we’re also using smarter chemistry to make sure they’re safer for everyone who assembles, uses, and recycles them,” 

Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary relief as well as injunctive relief, hoping to prevent Apple from using the alleged representations or omissions in the future. Importantly, injunctive relief is difficult for plaintiffs to recover, due to the unlikeliness of a future purchase when they’ve already made a claim against it. However, in this case, the plaintiffs acknowledge that they are likely to continue using the product if certain changes in production are made. 

Manufacturers, retailers, and vendors of materials containing PFAS will likely see and be involved in the expansion of this field in the coming years.  

In our current representation of complex litigation involving alleged PFAS exposure, FMG remains well-informed and knowledgeable about all aspects of PFAS and their impact on human health.

For more information, please feel free to contact Joshua G. Ferguson at joshua.ferguson@fmglaw.com, James M. Mathew at james.mathew@fmglaw.com, or your local FMG attorney.

Share

Save Print