One of the outcomes of releasing a product you allow to be improved with consumer feedback after purchase. Some(most)times it’s worth investing in better QC before going live.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued by Women After Exes Use AirTags to Stalk Them
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sue the execs. Oh wait, let me sue the $2.5 Trillion company.
Ya know, I could buy an extra iPhone, put it on a cheap cell plan, and hide it in the car with “Find my Phone” on. It would never give you the notification it was “following” you, as a Tag would. With minimal effort, I could even tap off the car’s power and keep it hidden and permanently installed. Point being, it isn’t the availability of the technology, it’s about the actual criminal doing the tracking - we need strong penalties. It is absolutely futile to sue every company that has a device that is trackable. From dog collars to every smart phone out there, you can’t possibly eliminate the tools of the crime. And for every criminal out there, countless legitimate, intended uses of the Tags are helping people.
Ya know, I could buy an extra iPhone, put it on a cheap cell plan, and hide it in the car with “Find my Phone” on. It would never give you the notification it was “following” you, as a Tag would. With minimal effort, I could even tap off the car’s power and keep it hidden and permanently installed. Point being, it isn’t the availability of the technology, it’s about the actual criminal doing the tracking - we need strong penalties. It is absolutely futile to sue every company that has a device that is trackable. From dog collars to every smart phone out there, you can’t possibly eliminate the tools of the crime. And for every criminal out there, countless legitimate, intended uses of the Tags are helping people.
It only seems fishy because you've assumed she hasn't done those things, but I don't see anything in the article that says that.
I'm going to sue the tea company, because I spilled it on myself.
I'm of the mind that it's not acceptable to track a person without their knowledge.
The question then is who is culpable for misuse of trackers. Aren't companies like Apple, Google and others data trackers also surveilling people without their knowledge?
Both essentially invade your privacy but an Airtag's use is determined by the end-user, whereas data tracking services are determined by the company not the end-user.
The question then is who is culpable for misuse of trackers. Aren't companies like Apple, Google and others data trackers also surveilling people without their knowledge?
Both essentially invade your privacy but an Airtag's use is determined by the end-user, whereas data tracking services are determined by the company not the end-user.
Last edited:
Knife companies can't reasonably be expected to do anything about it. They're simple knives. Apple is a technology company - they can improve their products in a manner that mitigates potential harm. This matters to civil courts. If they had the ability to reasonably do something, and didn't, they could be found liable.
That said, Apple has included several features for detecting unknown AirTags.
The data tracking service is also determined by the user, it is directly tied to the “AirTag’s use” that you mention. Additionally, Apple notifies the user very clearly, in more than one place “clearly states that AirTag is meant to track their own belongings, that using AirTag to track people without consent is a crime . . . “
The company does not have, nor can be expected to have, an understanding of the individual consumer’s tracking intent - i.e., little Johnny’s backpack, your luggage, or (wrongly) your wife. They have put very reasonable safe-guards into the system to alert people of being tracked unknowingly, serialized the devices and required an activation of the Tags to be linked to an Apple ID. Then add precision location and alerting features (including consideration that the speaker may have been disabled) and cooperation with law enforcement to release purchaser/account info. This has far more protection then tracking devices you can easily buy off of Amazon (try a simple search on “tracking devices” - yikes)
Let’s sue the manufacturers of spy cameras too.
And also the companies that manufacture binoculars..
And also the companies that manufacture binoculars..
That is a terrible example. The AirPods were designed for tracking and they do that well. There was nothing in their design about not tracking things or people. That would make no sense for a tracking device.
I was moving the goalposts to question whether tech companies who collect data on individuals without their knowledge, for example through internet searches, app metadata, location tracking, etc, are essentially opening the door and setting a precedent for individuals to do the same.
having been a victim of stocking, I can see where the anger can come from but I would need to know more about the situation. The exboyfriend/exhusband are the real issue.
So instead of going after their broke exes they’re going after the one with big pockets?
Why not sue the carriers for providing service while they’re at it? This is why I hate America. Punk a$$ beaches sue for everything.
Why not sue the carriers for providing service while they’re at it? This is why I hate America. Punk a$$ beaches sue for everything.
In a strict liability case, Apple would have a solid misuse defense. The plantif(s) would have to demonstrate the product was so defective or had design flaws so serious that absent the criminal intent of the party that misused the AirTag that it likely would have caused harm on its own without any negligent action from a the owner of the AirTag. Apple’s safeguards to alert potential victims of stalking that they are possibly being tracked cannot be ruled defective simply becuase they didn’t work in this case becuse the criminal misuse of this product was not a design flaw or defect. Even if the misuse was a foreseeable situation, Apple adequately warned the owner of the Airtag that anonymously tracking people was not a supported use of the product.
If a company makes a gas can and someone fills it with gas and leaves it in their hot car and it catches fire and happens to burn my car too becuse it is parked next to it, I can’t sue the cas can manufacturer for damages if they properly labeled the can with the dangers of leaving it in a hot car. The negligence of misuse and liability for damages fall directly on the person that diregarded the label and misused the product. If a properly stored gas can that someone else owned caught fire and damaged my property, then I would certainly have case against the manufacture as it would be a defect or design flaw that caused the fire.
Caveat; Not every case is cut and dry and there may be mitigating circumstances and levels of culpability that may make a company partially liable for damages caused by misuse if the court finds their warning against foreseeable misuse was reasonably inadequate or they actively encouraged a use case for their product that caused damages.
If a company makes a gas can and someone fills it with gas and leaves it in their hot car and it catches fire and happens to burn my car too becuse it is parked next to it, I can’t sue the cas can manufacturer for damages if they properly labeled the can with the dangers of leaving it in a hot car. The negligence of misuse and liability for damages fall directly on the person that diregarded the label and misused the product. If a properly stored gas can that someone else owned caught fire and damaged my property, then I would certainly have case against the manufacture as it would be a defect or design flaw that caused the fire.
Caveat; Not every case is cut and dry and there may be mitigating circumstances and levels of culpability that may make a company partially liable for damages caused by misuse if the court finds their warning against foreseeable misuse was reasonably inadequate or they actively encouraged a use case for their product that caused damages.
Last edited:
How do we know they didn't do it on purpose? "Hey Hon, I'll slip an AirTag in the kids bag and we'll sue and then split it. K?"
"🎶I sued Starbucks because I spilled a Frappuccino in my lap, and brrrrrrrrrr it was COLD!🎵"
-Weird Al Yankovic
Exact thing I thought. With that gold digger attitude, I wouldn''t put it past them to be in cahoots.
Your example is really apples and oranges but suppose knife makers had repeated reports of users hurting themselves or others accidentally through poor or defective knife design. That is probably the direction these lawsuits will take. I think Apple could do even more to protect user privacy but I do not believe they should be sued either. However, if these lawsuits (even threats of them) can lead to more AirTag innovation that could save lives, maybe that is what has to happen.
There was some woman who stole a car and hoarded gasoline. She fled the cops, crashed and started a fire/explosion:
Woman Hoarding Gas Runs From Police And Crashes Causing "Multiple Explosions" | Carscoops
Running from police with a trunk full of gas apparently is a very bad idea
www.carscoops.com
Except AirTags are designed to only protect the privacy of their users, not everyone else. They are not defective in their design or execution. The bad side effect is simply an unintended consequence like cars being used to ram through Apple Stores in order to facilitate theft.