Apple class action alleges Apple Watch SE smart watch not swim-proof as advertised

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Apple Watch class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Laurie Braaten has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc.
• Why: She alleges the Apple Watch SE, which is marketed as “swim-proof,” routinely fails in brief encounters with water.
• Where: The Apple class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

Apple Inc. markets its Apple Watch SE as “swim-proof” even though the product routinely fails in brief encounters with water, according to a class action lawsuit filed Aug. 25 in California federal court.

Plaintiff Laurie Braaten says she paid at least $279 for an Apple Watch SE based on Apple’s representations that it was swim-proof and water resistant. However, after she jumped into the shallow end of a pool to assist her dog, she noticed that her Apple Watch began to malfunction.

Braaten maintains that she used her Apple Watch SE according to the device’s operating instructions and representations of its expected water-resistant capabilities.

The Apple class action lawsuit asserts that a significant percentage of Apple Watch SE products become damaged and experience diminished functionality after being exposed to small amounts of water. This alleged Apple Watch swim-proof issue is caused by faulty sealing, Braaten says. 

She filed the Apple class action lawsuit on behalf of all U.S. residents who purchased an Apple Watch swim-proof device since Aug. 25, 2018.

Water resistance important to consumers, Apple class action asserts

Consumers are increasingly concerned about protecting their smart watches from water damage, and manufacturers have stepped up to offer more products that are resistant to liquid damage, Braaten notes.

She says Americans have experienced a “hidden tax” of $10 billion per year due to the inability of many smart watches to withstand minimal water contact. The International Data Corporation in 2016 found that contact with water was the second most-common cause of damage to smart devices globally, the Apple class action says.

As a result, consumers are willing to pay a higher price for smart devices that are purportedly water resistant, Braaten says.

Apple Watch swim-proof representations are misleading, plaintiff says

The Apple Watch swim-proof device is advertised as having a water resistance of WR50, which means the product can safely be used for water activities such as showering and swimming, according to the Apple class action lawsuit.

However, the Apple Watch swim-proof device fails to meet the promised standards for water resistance, Braaten says. 

She says the test for water resistance does not take into consideration that smart watches will be exposed to corrosive agents like bodily oils, suntan lotions, cosmetics, and water which can cause the device’s permeability to degrade.

She also says that the product’s barrier protections are porous and “deter” water from entering and do not provide true water resistance.

The Apple class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of warranty, false advertising, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2021, a group of plaintiffs filed an Apple class action lawsuit alleging Apple Watch screens had a defect that can cause them to detach, crack and shatter.

If you purchased an Apple Watch since 2015, you could be entitled to compensation if you experienced a cracked or detached screen.

Braaten is represented by George V. Granade and Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP.

The Apple Watch swim-proof class action lawsuit is Laurie Braaten v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-04861, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Student room scans prior to remote testing ruled unconstitutional
• Navy Federal class action over Zelle fraud seeks dismissal; plaintiff files opposition memo
• Clif Bar class action alleges Clif Blok Energy Chews falsely advertise caffeine content
• DoorDash data breach exposes customers’ personal, financial information