MDL Track
MDL 3199
Proposed: D. Ariz.
Apple AirTag stalking personal-injury and product-liability litigation
Consumer Tech · personal-injury and product-liability actions alleging Apple AirTags were designed, marketed, and sold without adequate safeguards against stalking, tracking, and related violence
Defendant
Apple, Inc.
MDL / Track
MDL 3199
Proposed: D. Ariz.
Judge
Judge Diane Humetewa (proposed)
Plaintiffs
27 actions across 17 district courts (per JPML motion)
Bellwether / Trial
No verdicts yet
Settlement Status
No settlement or global resolution reported
Track litigations for free. Save this matter, capture notes, and monitor live signals.
Case overview
Wade Kilpela Slade filed at least 22 individual products liability lawsuits against Apple Inc. in the Northern District of California on May 1, 2026, after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria denied class certification in the predecessor case Hughes v. Apple, No. 3:22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), and signaled that multidistrict litigation was the proper vehicle. The new filings allege Apple knowingly released AirTag in April 2021 without adequate anti-stalking safeguards, citing over 40,000 stalking reports received by Apple between April 2021 and April 2024. A separate individual suit was filed August 10, 2026, in the Eastern District of Michigan by two women alleging their former partners tracked them without triggering Apple's notification system.
Causation Theory
AirTag's design leverages Apple's Find My network—billions of iOS devices—to transmit precise location data via Bluetooth, enabling real-time tracking at a $29 price point that domestic violence advocates warned Apple about before launch. The device's anti-stalking architecture relies on delayed notifications (originally up to 72 hours, later reduced), audible alerts that can be muffled or disabled by physical speaker damage, and no immediate ownership disclosure to targets without law enforcement subpoena. A 2024 University of Cambridge study published in ACM Digital Library found these features insufficient to prevent unwanted tracking, noting that background scanning failed to alert targets in multiple test scenarios and that cross-platform Android detection was not implemented until 2023-2024, leaving a multi-year protection gap.
Case Management Orders
Litigation status
Plaintiffs filed an August 4, 2026 JPML motion to centralize AirTag stalking litigation as MDL 3199, proposing transfer to D. Ariz. before Judge Diane Humetewa; the motion identifies 27 related actions across 17 district courts. No transfer order has issued. The centralization bid follows Judge Vince Chhabria's March 2026 indication that class certification would fail in Hughes v. Apple, 3:22-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal.), where he allowed individual negligence and strict products liability claims to proceed.
MDL Track
MDL 3199
Proposed: D. Ariz.
Apple AirTag stalking personal-injury and product-liability litigation
State Court Activity
No state court activity reported
Geographic exposure
Documented stalking cases in virtually every US state since 2021 launch; AirTag evidence now routine in prosecutor domestic violence files nationwide. 1.5 billion active Apple devices globally create tracking network coverage in remote trails, cities, and highways. No reliable aggregate victim count available; individual cases no longer generate national headlines absent aggravating circumstances as of 2026.
Two women in Detroit filed individual suit Aug. 10, 2026 in E.D. Mich. alleging former partners tracked them via AirTag without receiving anti-stalking alerts. Jane MH Doe-1 and Jane WP Doe-2 claim violations of Michigan Consumer Protection Act plus negligence and invasion of privacy. Case follows decertification of prior class action in March 2026.
Houston homicide 2023: man allegedly used AirTag to track girlfriend before killing her. Prosecutor offices in multiple states reported AirTag evidence appearing as routine in domestic violence cases by 2024-2025.
Multiple class-action suits filed 2022 alleging inadequate anti-stalking measures; plaintiffs gained dozens more in 2023 and received proceed order 2024 before decertification March 2026.
Plaintiffs from decertified nationwide class action refiled separate individual lawsuits May 2026 to continue litigation after March 2026 decertification.
Chicago 2023: woman fatally shot after discovering and removing AirTag planted in her vehicle; assailant charged with first-degree murder.
Android users without Google-integrated scanning, older Android devices, niche distributions, and non-smartphone users receive no automatic warnings. Exposure disproportionately affects lower-income users, older users, and rural areas with lower Apple device density.
Key defendants
Apple, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Facing MDL 3199 centralization bid (D. Ariz. proposed, Judge Humetewa) after N.D. Cal. Judge Chhabria denied class cert in Hughes, 3:22-cv-07668, and greenlit individual negligence/strict liability claims March 2024. New wave of 22 individual suits filed May 2026 after class cert failure. Morrison & Foerster defending.
| Defendant | Role | Intelligence Note |
|---|---|---|
| Apple, Inc. | Manufacturer | Facing MDL 3199 centralization bid (D. Ariz. proposed, Judge Humetewa) after N.D. Cal. Judge Chhabria denied class cert in Hughes, 3:22-cv-07668, and greenlit individual negligence/strict liability claims March 2024. New wave of 22 individual suits filed May 2026 after class cert failure. Morrison & Foerster defending. |
Timeline
Apple launches AirTag
Apple releases AirTag tracking device despite warnings from domestic violence advocates and security researchers about stalking risks, per plaintiffs' MDL memorandum.
Initial class action filed
Class-action suit filed in California alleging AirTag safety features inadequate; additional suits filed in New York, per source reporting.
First Amended Complaint filed
Plaintiffs file First Amended Class Action Complaint in Hughes v. Apple, Inc., No. 22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.), adding allegations of design defects enabling stalking.
Judge indicates negligence claim viable
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria states tentative view that plaintiffs adequately alleged negligence claim under California law at hearing in Hughes, No. 22-cv-07668-VC.
Motion to dismiss partially denied
Judge Chhabria denies motion to dismiss for three plaintiffs (Kirkman, O'Neill, Humphreys), allowing negligence and product liability claims to proceed to discovery; grants dismissal with leave to amend for remaining claims. Hughes v. Apple, Inc., No. 22-cv-07668-VC (N.D. Cal.).
Class certification denied
Northern District of California denies class certification in Hughes v. Apple, Inc., No. 22-cv-07668-VC, per plaintiffs' MDL memorandum.
Individual actions refiled
At least 16 plaintiffs file individual actions in California after severance from Hughes class action, per MDL memorandum.
MDL consolidation sought
Plaintiffs file motion with JPML to centralize 27 personal injury and product liability actions as MDL No. 3199, seeking transfer to District of Arizona before Judge Diane Humetewa.
Michigan individual suit filed
Jane Doe plaintiffs file individual complaint in Eastern District of Michigan alleging former partners tracked them using AirTags without alert notifications.
Virginia complaint filed
Jane Doe H.P. files complaint in Eastern District of Virginia. PACER docket: 1:26-cv-02574 (VAED), receipt number AVAEDC-11238165.
Statute of limitations
MDL 3199 centralization pending before JPML as of Aug. 4, 2026 memorandum recommending transfer to D. Ariz. No transfer order issued. State-law claims predominate; no federal preemption of state tort claims established.
California
2 years from injury
Rule: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (personal injury)
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when victim knew or should have known of tracking
AirTag class action filed N.D. Cal. 2022; MDL 3199 centralization memo dated Aug. 4, 2026 supports transfer to D. Ariz. before Judge Diane Humetewa. No transfer order yet.
Florida
4 years from injury
Rule: Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) (negligence)
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; fraudulent concealment may toll
Legislative change effective Oct. 1, 2024 elevated electronic tracking to felony stalking under Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Criminal SOL now 3 years for third-degree felony per § 775.15. Civil claims remain 4 years.
New York
3 years from injury
Rule: N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) (negligence)
Discovery: Discovery rule applies to fraud claims; negligence accrues at injury unless continuing tort
Criminal stalking SOL: 2 years misdemeanor, 5 years felony per N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10. Civil claims likely pleaded as negligence/consumer protection.
⚠Texas
2 years from injury
Rule: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a)
Discovery: Discovery rule limited; accrual generally at occurrence unless injury inherently undiscoverable
Shortest major-state window. AirTag stalking victims may not discover device for months. Tolling for fraudulent concealment possible but fact-specific. Intake priority: screen for discovery date, not placement date.
Pennsylvania
2 years from injury
Rule: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2)
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; accrual when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of injury and cause
AirTag cases involve delayed discovery—victim receives iPhone alert days or weeks after placement. SOL runs from alert date, not placement.
Illinois
2 years from injury
Rule: 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202
Discovery: Discovery rule applies; fraudulent concealment tolls until discovery
Consumer fraud under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a (5 years) possible alternative theory. AirTag-specific claims likely pleaded as negligence/product liability.
Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2261A)
5 years from offense
Rule: 18 U.S.C. § 3282 default limitations
Discovery: N/A—criminal only
Federal cyberstalking statute provides criminal penalties only. No private right of action. Civil plaintiffs must rely on state tort law. Interstate element may support federal criminal referral but not civil SOL extension.
| State | SOL | Rule | Discovery Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 2 years from injury | Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (personal injury) | Discovery rule applies; accrual when victim knew or should have known of tracking | AirTag class action filed N.D. Cal. 2022; MDL 3199 centralization memo dated Aug. 4, 2026 supports transfer to D. Ariz. before Judge Diane Humetewa. No transfer order yet. |
| Florida | 4 years from injury | Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(a) (negligence) | Discovery rule applies; fraudulent concealment may toll | Legislative change effective Oct. 1, 2024 elevated electronic tracking to felony stalking under Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Criminal SOL now 3 years for third-degree felony per § 775.15. Civil claims remain 4 years. |
| New York | 3 years from injury | N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2) (negligence) | Discovery rule applies to fraud claims; negligence accrues at injury unless continuing tort | Criminal stalking SOL: 2 years misdemeanor, 5 years felony per N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 30.10. Civil claims likely pleaded as negligence/consumer protection. |
| ⚠Texas | 2 years from injury | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a) | Discovery rule limited; accrual generally at occurrence unless injury inherently undiscoverable | Shortest major-state window. AirTag stalking victims may not discover device for months. Tolling for fraudulent concealment possible but fact-specific. Intake priority: screen for discovery date, not placement date. |
| Pennsylvania | 2 years from injury | 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(2) | Discovery rule applies; accrual when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of injury and cause | AirTag cases involve delayed discovery—victim receives iPhone alert days or weeks after placement. SOL runs from alert date, not placement. |
| Illinois | 2 years from injury | 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202 | Discovery rule applies; fraudulent concealment tolls until discovery | Consumer fraud under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a (5 years) possible alternative theory. AirTag-specific claims likely pleaded as negligence/product liability. |
| Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2261A) | 5 years from offense | 18 U.S.C. § 3282 default limitations | N/A—criminal only | Federal cyberstalking statute provides criminal penalties only. No private right of action. Civil plaintiffs must rely on state tort law. Interstate element may support federal criminal referral but not civil SOL extension. |
Live intelligence
AI litigation brief
Apple AirTag Stalking remains pending consolidation with 14 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
Plaintiffs filed an August 4, 2026 JPML motion to centralize AirTag stalking litigation as MDL 3199, proposing transfer to D. Ariz. before Judge Diane Humetewa; the motion identifies 27 related actions across 17 district courts. No transfer order has issued. The centralization bid follows Judge Vince Chhabria's March 2026 indication that class certification would fail in Hughes v. Apple, 3:22-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal.), where he allowed individual negligence and strict products liability claims to proceed.
Key developments
Trajectory
Court filings and press coverage are both active in MDL 3199, pointing to sustained litigation pressure rather than a one-off headline cycle. 4 live sources are contributing current context.
Editorial intelligence
MDL 3199 should stay on the lead docket watch because it is the primary consolidation vehicle for Apple AirTag.
Generated Aug 23, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC
14 events detected
Google News (10)
Michigan women sue Apple over AirTag anti-stalking protection failures - AppleInsider
Michigan lawsuit alleges Apple has failed to "adequately protect" people from being stalked with AirTags - CBS News
Exes allegedly tracked 2 Metro Detroit women with Apple AirTags. Now they’re suing Apple - MLive.com
Apple finds itself in a legal pickle over AirTags and stalkers - PhoneArena
Stalking Victim Needs To File New Apple AirTag Suit In Fla. - Law360
Apple Slammed in Calif. Federal Court With Lawsuits Over AirTag's Alleged Use in Stalking - Law.com
Apple Hit With Over 30 Lawsuits Claiming AirTag Stalking Safeguards Failed - finance.biggo.com
Apple Faces Dozens of Lawsuits Over AirTag Stalking After Class Action Denied - MacRumors
Apple AirTag Plaintiffs Can't Get Class Cert. In Tracking Suit - Law360
Apple AirTag Judge Compares Fight To Uber Sex Assault MDL - Law360
Apple AirTag Stalking Personal Injury/Product Liability/Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
PACER docket entry from NDD: COMPLAINT against Apple Inc. (Filing fee $405, receipt number 300001754) filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(sl) (Entered: 08/17/2026)
Apple AirTag Stalking Personal Injury/Product Liability/Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
PACER docket entry from FLND: COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number AFLNDC-10009843.), filed by Jane Doe M.P. 1. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (MATHEWS, DAVID) (Entered: 08/17/2026)
Apple AirTag Stalking Personal Injury/Product Liability/Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
PACER docket entry from TXED: COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number BTXEDC-11737012.), filed by Rachel Fox. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Supp/Removal case, # 2 Supplement Summons in a Civil Action)(Abbarno, Justin) (Entered: 08/17/2026)
Apple AirTag Stalking Personal Injury/Product Liability/Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
PACER docket entry from VAED: Complaint ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AVAEDC-11238165.), filed by Jane Doe H.P. 1. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Floyd, Lee) (Entered: 08/13/2026)
Workbench
Sign in to save litigations, capture notes, and monitor live signals. Sign in for unlimited.
LexGenius Ranking
70Score
Court, news, and regulatory activity are elevated
Monitoring
Live
monitoring
Last: Aug 23, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC
Next: —
Source Monitoring
PACER
PACER
Google News
Event feed
14
events detected
AI Brief
Apple AirTag Stalking remains pending consolidation with 14 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
Plaintiffs filed an August 4, 2026 JPML motion to centralize AirTag stalking litigation as MDL 3199, proposing transfer to D. Ariz. before Judge Diane Humetewa; the motion identifies 27 related actions across 17 district courts. No transfer order has issued. The centralization bid follows Judge Vince Chhabria's March 2026 indication that class certification would fail in Hughes v. Apple, 3:22-cv-07668 (N.D. Cal.), where he allowed individual negligence and strict products liability claims to proceed.
Key developments
PACER court filing on Aug 17: Apple AirTag Stalking Personal Injury/Product Liability/Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. ‖ AppleInsider news on Aug 17: Michigan women sue Apple over AirTag anti-stalking protection failures - AppleInsider.
Generated Aug 23, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC
Tracked MDLs
MDL 3199
Pending consolidationProposed: D. Ariz.
Apple AirTag stalking personal-injury and product-liability litigation