Judge rules that Apple must defend against lawsuit alleging AirTags are used as tools for stalking, but acknowledges possibility that Apple’s defense may prevail.

Apple Inc. was unsuccessful in their attempt to have a lawsuit thrown out which claims that their AirTag devices are being used by stalkers to track their victims. US District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco made the ruling on Friday, stating that three plaintiffs in the class-action suit had valid claims for negligence and product liability, while dismissing the rest.

About three dozen women and men who filed the suit claimed that Apple was warned about the risks posed by its AirTags and argued that the company could be legally charged under California law when the trackers are used for abuse.

In the three surviving claims, the plaintiffs “allege that when they were pursued, the problems with the AirTag’s safety features were substantial and that these safety defects caused their injuries,” Chhabria wrote.

Apple argued that it designed the AirTag with “industry leading” security measures and should not be held responsible for misuse of the product.

“Apple may ultimately be correct that California law did not require it to do more to reduce stalkers’ ability to effectively use AirTags, but that determination cannot be made at this early stage,” the judge wrote in allowing the three plaintiffs to exercise their right. arguments.

The company’s spokesperson did not immediately return an email requesting comment on the decision.

Apple was accused of carelessly releasing the AirTag despite warnings from advocacy groups and others that the product would be used again for surveillance. “At just $29, it has become the weapon of choice for stalkers and abusers,” according to the complaint.

Apple developed a feature that warns users when an AirTag might be tracking them, but that and other security measures aren’t enough, according to the suit.

Tile Inc. faces similar allegations that its tracking devices connected to Amazon.com Inc.’s Bluetooth network lack adequate protection against stalking.

The case is Hughes v. Apple, Inc., 3:22-cv-07668, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).