Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I get the irony of posting this on a forum dedicated to a corporation, but the idea that that McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was frivolous is corporate propaganda designed to make the company look better. They were serving coffee that was way too hot and they lowered the temp because of the lawsuit. It was a good thing.
The temperature they lowered it to would still be able to give you third degree burns. In fact, coffee that’s as little as 150°F can give you third degree burns. Try to find a coffee shop that serves coffee lower than that.

Also, it isn’t McDonald’s fault that the woman tried to remove the lid when the coffee was between her legs. I’m sorry, I feel bad for what happened to her, but it wasn’t a smart idea. When you order a hot coffee, you know it’s served hot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Amazing Iceman
PFAS is most commonly used to make products waterproof, stain-resistant, grease-proof, nonstick, and resistant to heat or corrosion.

So, really, any of Apple's bands that have those properties could have been treated with PFAS.

Of course, we shouldn't speculate as it's impossible to know exactly which ones. But something tells me it's probably the bands that buyers have praised for being the most durable and the bands that wear and stain the least.
So…. We should all switch to FineWoven(R) watch bands since those things are the opposite of durable? ;)
 
You'd think: 1 - there would need to be clinical evidence of a user having health issues related to these chemicals, or proof that a user has absorbed the chemicals and 2 - that the 'form' of these chemicals are are type that are proven to be absorbed. Not all are. I'm not happy about the fact that the bands have such things, but the lawsuit seems impulsive. But maybe they hope for a quick payout and be done.
Came here to say the same exact thing.
 
Any proof of this accusation or is this just a theory? (Guilt of main issue aside)
The reports on the topic state that the coffee was far too close to boiling temperatures -- which is by no means a safe temperature to drink, let alone spill on yourself. Additionally, this was not the first such reported incident... just the worst of those incidents, resulting in thousands of dollars in medical bills for the old woman who spilled her coffee.

Reference: What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit
 
You'd think: 1 - there would need to be clinical evidence of a user having health issues related to these chemicals, or proof that a user has absorbed the chemicals and 2 - that the 'form' of these chemicals are are type that are proven to be absorbed. Not all are. I'm not happy about the fact that the bands have such things, but the lawsuit seems impulsive. But maybe they hope for a quick payout and be done.
In a recent retrospective study (Ragnarsdottir et al 2022) there is inconsistent data as to whether there are significant effects from PFAS and their precursors in transdermal absorption. The paper stated that more transdermal studies have to be done. The European Food Safety Authority found "possible side effects", and epidemiological and in vivo animal studies have some found consistent effects of exposure, including liver, kidney, endocrine and pregnancy issues. But these studies were not transdermal studies. And part of the problem is that much of the data cited in other papers is from the late 1990s-early 2000s when identifications of PFAS, human exposures and controls were not as precise, and the cohorts were sometimes highly exposed to known sources.

Also the main paths of absorption seem to be diet and drinking water, followed by indoor dust and air. And the chemical effect and longevity in the body is also dependent on whether the chemical is a short chain or long chain.

So briefly, not knowing the chemical composition of Apple's watch bands, there hasn't been enough study of dermal absorption to determine if that category of product and method of exposure is harmful.

If it were me, would it be better not to have those chemicals in the bands? Probably. But I'm not sure that makes a basis for a solid lawsuit.
 
I have access to the study through my university.
"Sample Collection. A total of 22 samples were acquired
either through purchase or by donation for analysis and
consisted of numerous brands (Table S1). Watch bands were
purchased online from Best Buy and Amazon in 2023. Bands
acquired through donation consisted of both worn and unworn
bands and ranged in year of purchase from 2018 to 2023. Over
half of the samples (13 of the 22) were advertised as
containing fluoroelastomers. Table S2 notes whether bands
were new or used and if advertised as containing fluoroelas-
tomers."

Edit: These are all the brands that were tested:
"Apple
Apple/Nike
CASETiFY
Fitbit
Google
KingofKings
Modal
Samsung
Tighesen
Vanjua"
Gee thank you very much! ❤️
.
Ah yes, the list tells all that I want to know. You have my sincerest gratitude, Zack. 🙇‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZacKaffeine
I often do this also, but I want to see if the study has assumptions that just do not make common sense. When someone pays for a study, they often get the result they are paying for. I am not saying that applies in this case, because like you indicated, no one can read the actual study without paying.
No competing interests are reported in the article, it neither are the founders of the research. This is normally done, but this journal might not publish that information. One could look at the authors’ website to see who funds them.
Having said that, in many cases the funder has no influence on the research, but the opposite is also known.
To the question of the original poster, the bands tested are linked to anonymous IDs, with no key provided linking the 10 companies to 22 bands. They are only split in prices lower $15 (n=5), 15-30 (n=14) and above $30 (n=3).
Here is the abstract:

Wicks et al. 2024

Presence of Perfluorohexanoic Acid in Fluoroelastomer Watch Bands​

Many “smart” and “fitness” watch bands are advertised to contain fluoroelastomers, a type of synthetic rubber designed to be resilient against skin oils and sweat. Fluoroelastomers, which are considered a polymeric form of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have historically involved the use of shorter-chain PFAS as surfactants in the polymerization process. In this study, 22 watch bands were analyzed across numerous brands and price points for the presence of PFAS. Products were first screened for total fluorine using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy on the surface of these bands, and 15 of the 22 watch bands contained total F concentrations >1% fluorine, suggesting the widespread use of fluoroelastomers in this product category. Watch bands then underwent solvent extraction and targeted LC-MS/MS analysis for 20 PFAS. Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) was the most frequently detected compound with concentrations from <LoD to 16662 ng/g. A subset of six watch bands also underwent direct total oxidative precursor (dTOP) assay to determine the presence of PFAS precursors. The very high concentrations of PFHxA readily extractable from the surfaces of fluoroelastomer watch bands, together with the current limited knowledge on the dermal absorption of PFHxA, demonstrate the need for more comprehensive exposure studies of PFHxA.
 
Newsflash, the fabric in furniture also contains forever chemicals. How much contact with furniture have you had over your lifetime?
 
  • Like
Reactions: delsoul and z4co
California is the American version of the EU, always moaning about something and looking for a payday. Maybe Apple should just release the Apple PocketWatch, hangs by a chain and then there's nothing to moan about.

Apple was born in California, loves California, lives there, works there, built the central mothership there, etc. Where are the actual places in the names of macOS since OS X?
 
Newsflash, the fabric in furniture also contains forever chemicals. How much contact with furniture have you had over your lifetime?

Well crap...

So go naked and do away with time keeping & heart rate monitoring? ;)

...and levitate all the moments of our life.

I'm guessing next is "hold our breath" too. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zarmanto
You'd think: 1 - there would need to be clinical evidence of a user having health issues related to these chemicals, or proof that a user has absorbed the chemicals and 2 - that the 'form' of these chemicals are are type that are proven to be absorbed. Not all are. I'm not happy about the fact that the bands have such things, but the lawsuit seems impulsive. But maybe they hope for a quick payout and be done.

With cases like this, it is always about lawyers looking to get a big payday. That's not to say that all such lawsuits are unjustifiable, only that the justification comes after the lawyers have dollar signs in their eyes. In this case, there appears to be evidence of it being about the payday. In particular,

1. The Guardian article says that bands which have fluoroelastomer in them contain PFAS. Apple does list fluoroelastomer in the composition of the bands cited in the case. So one has to question the claim of fraud and false advertising; and

2. The complainants in this case, Dominique Cavalier and Kiley Krzyzek are also the complainants in other non-related class-action lawsuits: Cavalier in a case against a financial credit service, Krzyzek in cases against Airbnb Travel insurance and against Live Nation about Taylor Swift concert tickets. Make of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
The reports on the topic state that the coffee was far too close to boiling temperatures -- which is by no means a safe temperature to drink, let alone spill on yourself. Additionally, this was not the first such reported incident... just the worst of those incidents, resulting in thousands of dollars in medical bills for the old woman who spilled her coffee.

Reference: What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit
I don’t think you read what I wrote or what I quoted
 
Just another scheme for trial lawyers to buy a new Gulfstream and nothing more.
 
California is the American version of the EU, always moaning about something and looking for a payday. Maybe Apple should just release the Apple PocketWatch, hangs by a chain and then there's nothing to moan about.

California is not a plaintiff in the suit. It did however ban the sale of newly made clothing (which by some stretch could include watch bands) containing PFAS after Jan 1, 2025. New York did also. This should make Apple stop selling bands containing fluoroelastomer soon unless Apple is going to fight on the letter of the law and argue that watch bands are not strictly clothing, nor were they named in the law.
 
I had to buy a new strap because the sport band that it came with irritated my skin so much. Very red and itchy. I’ve never had any kind of allergic reaction to anything in my life. Got the fabric sport loop and what a difference!
 
  • Like
Reactions: delsoul
I had to buy a new strap because the sport band that it came with irritated my skin so much. Very red and itchy. I’ve never had any kind of allergic reaction to anything in my life. Got the fabric sport loop and what a difference!

I had a similar reaction to a Fitbit band. It took a few months for the itchy rash to appear. I was really happy when Apple announced the Watch. I've used Milanese-loop metal bands on Apple Watch and never had an allergic reaction. They work well as a sports band (they are durable), but they get grungy from the dirt and sweat so they must be cleaned occasionally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: delsoul


A class action lawsuit filed against Apple this week in a California federal court accuses the company of false advertising and violating various consumer laws, by failing to disclose that some Apple Watch bands contain toxic materials.

3-4-24-Sport-Band-Refresh-Feature.jpg

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Apple misleads customers into thinking the Apple Watch has health and wellness benefits, and is safe to wear daily. The complaint cites a recent study that reportedly found some smartwatch bands contain "high levels" of so-called "forever chemicals," also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These substances can be absorbed through skin and can lead to health problems.

For synthetic rubber, PFAS can help to reduce discoloration and stains from sweat and dirt.

According to The Guardian, the study did not indicate which smartwatch brands were found to be using PFAS, but it said the study tested smartwatch models from Apple, Nike, Fitbit, and Google. Citing the study, the lawsuit alleges that "elevated levels" of the PFAS fluorine were found in the "expensive" category of smartwatch bands, and the complaint alleges that this included some Apple Watch bands. The proposed class is anyone in the U.S. who purchased a Sport Band, Nike Sport Band, or Ocean Band for an Apple Watch.

Apple did not immediately respond to our request for comment. A judge still has to decide whether to allow the class action lawsuit to proceed.

Article Link: Some Apple Watch Bands Contain Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Per Lawsuit
So does spandex active wear. But Apple as a trillion dollar stock has more to sue as target.
That said, guess light rubber bands should be make with natural materials like cotton or leather. Even metal ones could have unsafe synthetic coatings.
 
So does spandex active wear. But Apple as a trillion dollar stock has more to sue as target.
That said, guess light rubber bands should be make with natural materials like cotton or leather. Even metal ones could have unsafe synthetic coatings.

Unless they change the formula for Spandex to eliminate PFAs, newly manufactured Spandex cannot be sold in either California or New York due to laws which recently took effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paulchiu
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.