Fitbit Class Action Claims Heart Rate Monitor Doesn’t Work

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.

Fitbit’s heart rate monitor doesn’t work despite the widespread advertising campaign that claims otherwise, according to a class action lawsuit filed Tuesday in California.

Fitbit purchasers Kate McLellan, Teresa Black and David Urban allege that Fitbit PurePulse Trackers consistently mis-record heart rates especially during physical exercise. In addition, the Fitbit class action lawsuit claims that the company forced customers to sacrifice their legal rights in order to use Fitbits containing a heart monitor.

The plaintiffs state that this is an “unconscionable” action that was not agreed upon before customers made a Fitbit purchase. According to the Fitbit PurePulse class action lawsuit, customers found out they were required to give up their rights of joining a class action lawsuit against the company when they were forced to create a Fitbit account which activates the PurePulse Tracker.

According to the Fitbit heart monitor lawsuit, there was no indication at the time of purchase or on the product packaging that this “agreement would be necessary to render their PurePulse Trackers operational.” The plaintiffs claim that Fitbit profited handsomely from defrauding and cheating its customers.

McLellan says she purchased a Fitbit Charge HR for $161 because of the advertisements of offering a accurate heart rate reading. However, McLellan claims that while exercising, her heart rate reading on the Fitbit was a lot different than the reading on the stationary exercise equipment.

The Fitbit heart monitor class action lawsuit alleges a similar story of plaintiff Black who discovered her Charge HR was not working during a personal training session. According to Black, her trainer recorded her heart rate at 160 beats per minute, while her Fitbit showed a heart rate of 82 bpm.

The significant difference between heart rate readings is cause for concern, the Fitbit lawsuit states. “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.”

Urban purchased a Fitbit Surge at the recommendation of his doctor who allegedly told him to monitor his heart rate during exercise to keep it from getting above 160 bpm. However, Urban noticed that even at the highest workout intensity, the Surge never displayed a reading above 125 bpm. After checking it, Urban claims that the PurePulse Tracker consistently under-recorded his heart rate at high intensities, often by as much as 15-25 bpm.

Fitbit’s advertising material claims that PurePulse Trackers use LED lights to detect changes in capillary blood volume in order to “measure heart rate automatically and continuously.” However, the heart rate monitor class action lawsuit claims that Fitbit is in violation of Common Law Fraud by making claims that the PureTracker can consistently record accurate heart rates, when it does not perform as described.

If approved, the Fitbit class action would be open to nationwide Class Members who purchased a Fitbit PurePulse Tracker directly from Fitbit or fitbit.com and who did not opt out of the arbitration agreement. In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking subclasses for Class Members who purchased a Fitbit Heart Rate Fitness Watch directly from Fitbit or fitbit.com within the states of Colorado, California or Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Elizabeth J. Cabraser and Kevin R. Budner of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Robert Klonoff of Robert H. Klonoff LLC.

The Fitbit Heart Monitor Class Action Lawsuit is McLellan, et al. v. Fitbit Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00036, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action lawsuit against Fitbit Inc., pointing to a new study that indicates the popular fitness tracker is not completely accurate.

UPDATE 2: On Aug. 26, 2016, the plaintiffs argued that the court, not an arbitrator, should decide whether or not the class action claims should be subject to Fitbit’s arbitration clause. 

UPDATE 3: On Sept. 26, 2016, the plaintiffs in a Fitbit class action lawsuit are asking for a federal judge’s help in getting the defendant to respond to requests for discovery documents.

UPDATE 4: On Jan. 9, 2017, Fitbit urged a California federal judge to compel arbitration in a proposed class action lawsuit alleging the company’s popular wearable fitness trackers do not accurately record heart rates.UPDATE 5: On June 5, 2018, a California federal judge hasdecided to allowthe majority of claims in a class action lawsuit that alleges Fitbit devices cannot accurately read heart rates as advertised.