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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates