Surely one of the leaders of the wearable fitness tracker industry, FitBit has been conveyed a legal claim by three people on the basis of the fact that their PurePulse Trackers actually not monitor the heart rate precisely as advertised by the company.
The complainants, Teresa Black, Kate McLellan and David Urban, each claim that the readings shown on their FitBit Gadgets were off. Black maintains in the lawsuit that on one occasion, her heart rate was 160 bpm which her personal trainer recorded manually, while the Charge HR gadget that she possessed depicted her heart rate to be at 82 bpm only.
According to the class action lawsuit, “Plaintiff 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.”
McClellan points in the legal claim that she observed the Charge HR that she owned was actually showing quite different readings from the monitors on her stationary exercise machines for cardiovascular activities. She contacted FitBit, which suggested her to reboot the device that she had. When that proved useless, McLellan says that she got in touch with a FitBit representative over the web, who did not furnish her request for a refund.
Jonathan Selbin, one of the attorneys representing the offended party and all the purchasers of FitBit, asserts that FitBit actually publicizes its gadgets for high-intensity workouts, but the fact is that “it’s wildly inaccurate when you use it for that purpose. You market it to do something, and it can’t.”
Each of the mentioned plaintiffs concur in their legal claim that they actually would not have bought their FitBit gadgets or else would have paid less if they had known that they are unable to reliably deliver exact heart rate readings.
In an announcement published by ITV, a representative for FitBit defended its items and products, saying, “We do not believe this case has merit. FitBit stands behind our heart-rate technology and strongly disagrees with the statements made in the complaint and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.”
The lawsuit also incorporates an allegation of deceptive and unfair trade practice. The complainants allege that the buyers of the FitBit gadgets are unable to use them as they are advertised by FitBit, unless they get registered on FitBit’s website, which compels the users to consent to a class action ban and an arbitration agreement. The complaint also points out the fact that the purchasers are not indicated before or during the purchase that there in an agreement required.
“These are things that take away your constitutional rights, they say ‘you can’t sue us,'” Selbin maintains. “Just by visiting their website you are agreeing to arbitration or a class action ban.”
The full statement by FitBit from ITV:
“We do not believe this case has merit.
FitBit stands behind our heart rate technology and strongly disagrees with the statements made in the complaint and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
FitBit is committed to making the best clip and wrist-based activity trackers on the market. Our team has performed and continues to perform internal studies to validate our products’ performance.
PurePulse provides better overall heart rate tracking than cardio machines at the gym, as it tracks your heart rate continuously – even while you’re not at the gym or working out. But it’s also important to note that FitBit trackers are designed to provide meaningful data to our users to help them reach their health and fitness goals, and are not intended to be scientific or medical devices.”