Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Fitbit

Consumers from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Fitbit Inc., alleging the company’s wrist-based “Charge HR” and “Surge” heart rate monitors do not and cannot consistently record accurate heart rates during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly markets the devices in widespread advertising. The suit contends—and expert testing confirms—the heart rate monitors consistently mis-record heart rates by a significant margin, particularly during intense exercise. Not only are accurate heart readings important for those engaging in fitness, they can be critical to the health and well-being of people whose medical conditions require them to maintain (or not exceed) a certain heart rate.

The complaint alleges that despite Fitbit’s claims made in national advertising—which include alluring slogans such as “Know Your Heart” and “Every Beat Counts” in high-visibility advertisements such as those that ran during the 2015 World Series—Fitbit’s Heart Rate Monitors do not accurately track users’ heart-rates, much less “count every beat,” particularly during the strenuous activities.

“I bought a Fitbit Charge HR because I am a serious fitness enthusiast, and I wanted to track my heart rate accurately and consistently while I exercised to help me exercise safely and meet my fitness goals,” plaintiff Kate McLellan said. “Fitbit’s ads made it clear that that is precisely what the Heart Rate Monitors are supposed to do. But in my experience, they do not, and when I complained to Fitbit, they refused to refund my money. I brought this case because the Fitbit Charge HR that I bought does not accurately and consistently track my heart rate during intense exercise, and because Fitbit refused to stand behind its promise. And I brought it as a class action because I am not alone—I have learned that many others have experienced exactly the same failures because the Heart Rate Monitors do not perform as promised.”

Teresa Black of Grand Junction, Colo., claims her Charge HR device was off by nearly half. “Shortly after that purchase, Black noticed that her Charge HR was not consistently delivering accurate heart rate readings, particularly during exercise. At an intense part of a personal training session in mid-June 2015, Black’s personal trainer manually recorded her heart rate, which was 160 beats per minute (“bpm”). In stark contrast, her Charge HR indicated her heart rate was only 82 bpm. Black was approaching the maximum recommended heart rate for her age, and if she had continued to rely on her inaccurate PurePulse Tracker, she may well have exceeded it, thereby jeopardizing her health and safety,” the lawsuit charges.

In late 2014, Fitbit announced wrist-based heart rate monitoring. This kind of monitoring is very attractive to consumers, and can help them achieve and maintain proper intensity, measure effort, track progress, and stay motivated. For those with certain health conditions, monitoring one’s heart rate can be essential to staying safe. Traditionally, accurate heart rate monitoring required a chest strap, which can be uncomfortable, distracting, and difficult to clean.

“Fitbit marketed these products through aggressive and widespread advertising to consumers who were not only deceived in the devices’ true functionality, but who also were put at a safety risk by trusting the Fitbit Heart Rate Monitors’ inaccurate measurements. Many thousands of consumers paid a premium to get accurate heart rate monitors, and instead got devices that do not work as promised,” said Robert Klonoff, one of the lawyers representing McLellan and other plaintiffs, and a former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States.

Fitbit claimed to have circumvented these problems with its new wrist monitors, claiming it used LED lights to detect changes in capillary blood volume, then applied “finely tuned algorithms” to “measure heart rate automatically and continuously” and allow users to “accurately track workout intensity.” Fitbit employs this technology in the Charge HR and Surge devices and will be using the same technology in the successor to the Charge HR, the “Blaze,” which, according to reports, will be released in March 2016. However, Fitbit’s advertising on these products does not state or suggest the technology works only at low or resting heart rates, if at all, and that reported rates from high-intensity activity are inaccurate. Contrarily, Fitbit expressly markets the Heart Rate Monitors for activity and fitness, and its ads and other promotional materials depict them in use during high-intensity workouts. The lawsuit seeks to redress the marketing and advertising.

David Urban of Wisconsin noticed that his Surge device never displayed a reading over 125 bpm, according to the lawsuit. He claims he never would have purchased the product if he knew it couldn’t display accurate readings.

Jonathan D. Selbin, who also represents all the plaintiffs, said Fitbit tried to shield itself from being held accountable to consumers through use of a hidden arbitration clause and class action ban. “Those clauses—which purport to take away consumers’ constitutional rights to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from fraud—are hidden on Fitbit’s website. They are brought to the attention of consumers who purchased at third party websites and retail locations only after they buy their Fitbits and visit Fitbit’s website to register them. Fitbit recently admitted in court documents in an unrelated case that the Fitbit devices cannot function properly without registering them on Fitbit’s website. And just by visiting that website, Fitbit purports to bind you to the arbitration clause and class action ban. We believe that this practice, itself, is an unfair and fraudulent business practice and an example of the dangers of allowing companies to unilaterally impose arbitration clauses on unsuspecting consumers.”

The lawsuit, filed in California, seeks to force Fitbit to end its “deceptive” marketing and sales of the Heart Rate Monitors, as well as requiring the compay to compensate customers. The suit alleges that Fitbit’s conduct was systematic, repetitious, knowing, intentional, and malicious, and demonstrated a lack of care and reckless disregard for plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights and interests.