In a January 2025 nationwide class-action suit, consumer plaintiffs alleged a leading smartwatch maker was using perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) in its fluoroelastomer sports band products for its smartwatches and that it did not warn consumers of risk. The smartwatch maker then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Earlier this year, a U.S. District judge in the Northern District of California, largely denied the motion while granting dismissal with leave to amend on plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability claims. Plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent concealment/omission, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, among others, survived.

Plaintiffs contend the intended placement of the watch at a user’s wrist, “where dermal absorption is heightened due to thin, sensitive skin and constant contact,” poses a health risk. Plaintiffs further allege they “viewed and relied on pervasive marketing and advertisements from [the smartwatch maker] that promoted the [watch’s] various features,” including that the watchbands were “suitable for prolonged periods of use and exercise.”

To bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff must have Article III standing, which requires that the plaintiff have suffered or face a likelihood of suffering an injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant and redressable by judicial relief. The court summarized the smartwatch maker’s argument as follows: “plaintiffs do not have standing because they have not shown that the smartwatch bands ‘contain PFHxA, let alone that the quantities alleged are harmful,’ thus failing to establish either injury or traceability.”

The court, however, found that plaintiffs have “plausibly alleged that PFHxA levels are reasonably dangerous because they conducted their own ‘independent lab testing’ and found that the [sports bands] specifically had PFHxA at a level of 1020.114 ng/g (ppb).” Because the smartwatch maker and the European Union set 25 ng/g or ppb as the “concentration significant enough to raise concerns warranting some type of disclosure or prohibition” these lab result allegations were sufficient and were found to be at “risky levels.”

The court also found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an injury arising from the alleged presence of PFHxA in the watch bands.

“It is well-established that a plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact if they paid more for a product than they would have paid due to a defendant’s ‘false representations … or actionable non-disclosures.’ Taking all factual inferences in plaintiffs’ favor on this motion to dismiss, plaintiffs adequately plead an injury in fact that is traceable to [the smartwatch maker] by alleging that [it] failed to disclose their risk of exposure to PFHxA and that they would not have purchased their bands, or would have paid less for them, if they had known of that risk.”

As to the fraud cause of action, the court was convinced that plaintiffs “plausibly pleaded that [the smartwatch maker] knew of a serious risk of dangerous levels of PFHxA in its [watch bands].” Plaintiffs allege that the smartwatch maker had a ““Full Material Disclosure program” through which the company “documents the complete chemical composition of every homogenous material in every component of [its] products, including the Class Products and uses the program to ‘understand the material composition’ of its products.” And the smartwatch maker “represented that it has ‘full knowledge of the chemical composition of materials used in its products and the life cycle exposures associated with those chemicals.’” For PFHxA specifically, [the smartwatch maker] had “set an amount of PFHxA necessary to trigger reporting requirements and then eventually restricted its use.”

Given these allegations, the court found that plaintiffs plausibly plead that [the smartwatch maker] knew what was in its products.

However, the court dismissed with leave to amend the plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs alleged that they relied on “pervasive marketing and advertisements,” but the court found that they only discussed the advertisements “generally and fail to plead required elements with particularity, such as when they saw the marketing or advertisement … which specific advertisements were material, or when the statements were made.”

Plaintiffs did not specifically allege which statements they relied on, when or where they saw them, or how they received them.

The case is Dominique Cavalier et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 5:25-cv-00713, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.