AirTag Stalking Litigation
“We didn't join this fight. We filed it.”
On August 10, 2026, Stinar Lannen filed the first AirTag stalking case in Michigan federal court — two women, both tracked by former partners, both failed by the safeguards Apple promised were there. If a $29 tracker was used to follow you, you are not the first, and you do not have to be the last.
Jane MH Doe-1 and Jane WP Doe-2 v. Apple Inc., No. 2:26-cv-12764 (E.D. Mich., filed Aug. 10, 2026)
Counsel of record — we drafted and filed this complaint
Negligence and gross negligence · Product liability (design defect) · Michigan Consumer Protection Act · Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion)
Apple Inc.
Compensatory and exemplary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney fees; jury trial demanded
People tracked by an AirTag placed without their consent — filed pseudonymously where safety requires it
What We Filed, and Why
Apple released AirTag in April 2021: a quarter-sized tracker that costs $29 and rides on the Find My network — more than two billion Apple devices worldwide, silently relaying its location to whoever registered it. That network is what makes AirTag good at finding a lost suitcase. It is what makes it devastating at finding a person.
Our complaint alleges Apple knew. Domestic violence advocates warned before launch. Apple’s own materials described its anti-stalking features as designed to “deter as opposed to prevent” malicious use — a candid admission, in Apple’s own words, that the product went to market with safeguards it knew were incomplete. From April 2021 through April 2024, Apple is alleged to have received more than 40,000 stalking reports, averaging over 1,000 a month.
Five years later, Apple is still reacting. Alert delays shortened, then shortened again. A Tracker Detect app for Android eight months after launch, requiring a victim to already suspect she was being followed. A cross-platform standard announced in 2023 and not fully implemented until 2024. Every fix arrived after the harm, and each one left the same gap: the product still works exactly as a stalker needs it to.
Two Women. Two Phones. Neither Was Warned.
The two failures our clients experienced are the two failures at the center of this litigation.
The iPhone user who got no alert
Our first client was stalked by a former partner through the summer of 2026. He turned up at a park where she was, though her car was parked behind a truck. He knew about a fireworks event she had never mentioned to him. She moved her camper out of a campground she had belonged to for ten years; he found her anyway, and days later appeared at her new residence. On July 25, 2026, her twelve-year-old son found an AirTag hidden in her car.
She uses an iPhone. Apple’s system — the one marketed as protecting exactly this person — never notified her that an unknown AirTag was traveling with her.
The Android user the system was never built for
Our second client left a four-year abusive relationship and moved into a new apartment in March 2023 without telling her ex where she had gone. He was outside her building the day she moved in. Two weeks later she found an AirTag concealed under her back seat. She was on Android — no automatic detection, no alert, no way to know. The tracker was only discovered when her niece visited with an iPhone and that phone fired the alert her own never could.
She reported it to police in April 2023. Nothing meaningful happened. She still lives in that apartment because she cannot afford to move, and she is still looking over her shoulder.
These are not opposite stories. They are the same story: a safety system that depends on which phone the victim happens to own, and that fails on both.
The Legal Theory — Four Counts Under Michigan Law
Filing in Michigan is a deliberate choice. A California court concluded in 2026 that AirTag stalking claims are too individual to certify as a class — every victim’s tracking, injuries, and governing law are different — and pointed toward individual and mass tort litigation instead. Michigan law supplies exactly that route, with statutory hooks California did not have.
Count I — Negligence and Gross Negligence
Apple owed a duty of reasonable care in designing, marketing, and putting AirTag on the market. Michigan measures duty by foreseeability, the closeness of the connection between the conduct and the injury, moral blame, and the policy of preventing future harm. Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425 (1977), held that whether a manufacturer owes due care to a bystander harmed by its product — there, slingshots marketed to children — is for a jury to decide. A tracker sold to anyone with $29 raises the same question.
The complaint also pleads a voluntary-undertaking duty: Apple did not merely build a product, it built safeguards and told the public they protected against stalking. Having undertaken that, Apple had to do it with reasonable care. And it pleads gross negligence supporting exemplary damages under MCL 600.2949a — conduct reflecting conscious indifference to the safety of the people it endangered.
Count II — Product Liability, Design Defect
Under MCL 600.2946, a product is defective when a reasonably prudent manufacturer would not have marketed it given its risks, or when a practical and technically feasible alternative design would have prevented the harm without significantly impairing utility. Critically, MCL 600.2947(2) provides that a manufacturer is not shielded from liability for harm caused by misuse when that misuse was reasonably foreseeable — which is the whole case, stated in a statute.
The complaint identifies alternative designs that were feasible in April 2021 and that Apple chose not to implement:
- Identity verification or account linking before an AirTag could be activated
- A mandatory registration system tying each tracker to a verified identity, so law enforcement could identify a stalker quickly
- Geofencing that disables tracking once a tag stays near a non-owner’s device for a defined period
- A louder, non-removable speaker sounding within minutes rather than hours or days
- Tamper-evident design rendering the AirTag non-functional if the speaker is disabled or removed
- Rate-limiting to stop one user from deploying multiple tags around the same non-owner
- Periodic owner re-authentication, preventing indefinite passive tracking
- Equivalent Android detection released at launch, rather than leaving half the population unprotected for years
Count III — Michigan Consumer Protection Act
Apple represented that AirTag carried adequate anti-stalking safeguards while continuing to sell it knowing what it was being used for — representations that the product had characteristics and benefits it did not have, and was of a standard or quality it was not, in violation of MCL 445.903(1)(c), (e), and (s). The complaint pleads MCL 750.539l — Michigan’s prohibition on placing a tracking device on another person’s vehicle without consent — as an independent predicate unlawful practice. Remedies include actual damages or $250, injunctive relief, and attorney fees under MCL 445.911.
Count IV — Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion)
Michigan recognizes intrusion upon seclusion. Doe v. Mills, 212 Mich. App. 73 (1995). The complaint alleges Apple intruded on our clients’ private affairs by designing, deploying, and maintaining a global tracking network it knew would be used to geolocate people without consent. Michigan’s own statutes — MCL 750.539l and the anti-stalking statute, MCL 750.411h — establish that a person’s constant, precise physical location is private, and that transmitting it to a stalker is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Who May Have a Claim
You may have a claim if an AirTag was used to track your location without your consent. The strongest cases tend to share these features:
- A tracker was placed on your vehicle, in your belongings, or among your child’s things without your knowledge
- The tracking was connected to stalking, domestic violence, harassment, or a former partner
- Apple’s safeguards failed you — no alert at all, an alert that came far too late, or no detection because you use Android
- You suffered real consequences: fear, anxiety, PTSD, depression, sleep loss, therapy or medical costs, property damage, relocation, new locks or cameras, lost work
- You documented it — a police report, a protective order, an alert screenshot, witnesses, or a criminal case against the person who planted it
Not every item is required. Our own clients did not have identical proof — one found the device through her child, the other through a relative’s phone. If you are unsure whether what happened to you counts, that is exactly the call to make.
Why These Cases Need Trial Lawyers
There is no class to join. That door closed, and what replaced it is individual litigation — cases that have to be pleaded state by state, worked up one at a time, and taken to a jury. Firms built around signing onto someone else’s class filing are not equipped for that.
We wrote this complaint. Our attorneys have served as court-appointed lead and co-lead counsel in complex privacy and data litigation, including a $141 million class settlement and co-lead appointment in a case involving the data of more than 150,000 student-athletes. We demanded a jury here because we intend to try it. Defendants who know a case will actually be tried treat it differently than defendants who know it will not.
These cases also demand discretion. Both of our clients filed under pseudonyms because naming them would create real danger. Sealing identifying details, coordinating with a protective order or a criminal case, and keeping a client’s address out of a public filing are routine parts of how we work — not afterthoughts.
What to Do Now
If you believe you are being tracked, your safety comes first. Call 911 if you are in immediate danger. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is available 24/7 at 1-800-799-7233. Consider having your vehicle checked somewhere other than home, and be aware that removing a tracker can tell the person who planted it that you know.
For a legal claim, evidence matters and it degrades fast. If it is safe to do so:
- Screenshot every unwanted-tracking alert, including maps and timestamps
- Photograph the AirTag where you found it before removing it — and keep the device; do not destroy it
- Save the serial number, readable by tapping the tag against a phone; it is what ties a tracker to the person who registered it
- File a police report and request a copy, even if officers take no action
- Write down the incidents while they are fresh: dates, places he appeared, what he could not have known otherwise
- Keep records of what this cost you — therapy, medical care, locks, cameras, a move, missed work, vehicle damage
- Preserve texts, emails, and voicemails, and identify anyone who witnessed the behavior
Then call us. The review is free and confidential, and an attorney does it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there an AirTag class action I can join?
No. A federal court in California denied class certification in 2026, holding that stalking is too individual for classwide treatment. Claims are now brought individually. Your claim exists only if it is filed.
Do I have to live in Michigan?
No. We filed in Michigan on behalf of Michigan residents, and we maintain offices in Birmingham, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Where a case belongs depends on where the tracking happened and where you live. Call and we will tell you straight.
I never found the AirTag — do I still have a case?
Possibly. Alert screenshots, Find My history, police reports, and witness testimony can establish tracking without the device. Many claims begin with a pattern the victim can describe: he was somewhere he could not have known to be.
I use Android and never got any warning at all. Is that a problem for my case?
It is the opposite of a problem. The absence of protection for Android users is a core allegation in our complaint. For years there was no automatic detection at all, and stalkers knew it.
Doesn't the stalker bear the blame, not Apple?
Both can be true, and Michigan law says so directly. MCL 600.2947(2) provides that a manufacturer is not shielded from liability for harm caused by misuse of its product when that misuse was reasonably foreseeable. Apple knew before launch what AirTag would be used for.
Can I file anonymously?
Both of our clients are proceeding under pseudonyms, with their identities known to counsel. Where identification would create a safety risk, we ask the court for that protection as a matter of course.
How long do I have to file?
Michigan’s deadlines vary by claim, and the answer depends on when the tracking occurred and when you discovered it. Because no class is holding your place, waiting is the most common way a valid claim is lost. Call and we will evaluate the timing for free.
What does it cost?
Nothing up front. We handle these cases on contingency: if we take your case, you pay nothing unless we recover for you.
Start here.
Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Talk to the lawyers who actually try these cases.
Free, confidential case review. If we take your case, you pay nothing unless we win. Our attorneys — not a call center — evaluate every claim.