Class Action

FitBit’s PurePulse Tracker

Class Action

FitBit’s PurePulse Tracker

June 2018: One of the named plaintiffs (Dunn) filed an amended complaint bringing similar allegations.

October 2017: A federal judge granted Fitbit’s motion to compel arbitration for the plaintiffs who did not opt out and denied its motion to stay or dismiss one of the named plaintiff’s (Dunn’s) claims.

May 2016: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding several named plaintiffs and the Blaze fitness watch to the list of watches at issue.

January 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Fitbit, Inc. for allegedly the PurePulse™ technology in its fitness watches – including the Charge HR and Surge – accurately record a wearer’s heart rate during physical activity when, according to plaintiffs, the technology does not consistently and accurately record the wearers’ heart rates during intense physical activity. (McLellan et al v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-36, N. D. CA.)

For more information about other class-action lawsuits against Fitbit and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.


Class-Action Tracker

Fitbit Charge 2

Class Action

Fitbit Charge 2

In February 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Fitbit, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the quality of Fitbit Charge 2 fitness bands by failing to disclose that a defect causes…

Fitbit’s “Sleep-Tracking” Function

Class Action

Fitbit’s “Sleep-Tracking” Function

November 2018: Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement agreement. According to its terms, class members may file a claim to receive $12.50 for each qualifying Fitbit device…

Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge Wristbands

Class Action

Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge Wristbands

A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Fitbit in February 2016. According to the complaint, the company deceptively markets the Charge HR and Surge wristband activity trackers with PurePulse™…


The Latest

Filters


Show More