Apple Watch Band Lawsuit Over Toxic PFAS Chemicals

The Apple Watch band lawsuit over PFAS is a proposed class action pending in California federal court that accuses Apple of selling its Sport Band, Ocean Band, and Nike Sport Band with undisclosed “forever chemicals” while marketing them as safe and health-conscious. Filed in early 2025 as Cavalier v. Apple Inc., the case survived Apple’s motion to dismiss in March 2026, with a judge allowing most of the plaintiffs’ claims to move forward.¹

Which Bands Are Named and What the Complaint Claims

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:25-cv-00713) by two named plaintiffs, Dominique Cavalier and Kiley Krzyzek, on behalf of a proposed class of consumers who bought the affected bands.¹ The three products at the center of the case are Apple’s fluoroelastomer bands: the Sport Band, the Ocean Band, and the Nike Sport Band.

The plaintiffs’ theory is that Apple knew these bands contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but marketed them anyway as “environmentally sustainable,” “designed to support and further human health and wellness,” and “suitable for everyday use.” The complaint brings nine claims, including violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.² The plaintiffs are asking for class certification, monetary damages, and an order stopping Apple from continuing the current marketing.

The Testing the Case Relies On

The complaint leans on a peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters in late 2024 by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, led by graduate student Alyssa Wicks and professor emeritus Graham Peaslee. The team tested 22 smartwatch and fitness tracker bands purchased in the United States across a range of price points.³

Fifteen of the 22 bands showed total fluorine concentrations greater than one percent, a chemical indicator of PFAS. Nine contained elevated levels of a specific compound, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), with some samples exceeding 16,000 parts per billion.⁴ Every fluoroelastomer band tested contained PFAS.⁵ Price was a strong predictor: all three bands priced above $30 had significantly elevated fluorine levels, while all five bands under $15 came in below one percent. Silicone bands showed little to no detectable PFAS.³

The Notre Dame team identified PFHxA as likely a residual surfactant left over from the emulsion polymerization process used to manufacture fluoroelastomers, meaning it may be a byproduct of production rather than something deliberately added to the finished band.⁶ The published paper did not name specific brands in the main text, though a brand list was included in the supporting information filed with the journal.⁴

Why Skin Contact Is Central to the Case

The plaintiffs argue that a watch band is a uniquely worrying place to find PFAS because people wear these bands directly against the skin for hours at a stretch, often while sweating. Consumers wear fitness trackers an average of about 11 hours per day.³

The Notre Dame researchers confirmed PFHxA is extractable from band surfaces, and some reports have estimated that over 50 percent of PFHxA exposure may come through dermal absorption.⁶ A separate 2024 in vitro study using porcine skin found that PFHxA does permeate through skin at low rates and tends to accumulate in the outer skin layers, creating a reservoir effect.⁷ The Notre Dame authors themselves noted “limited knowledge on the dermal absorption of PFHxA” and called for more comprehensive exposure studies.⁴

PFAS are a class of more than 14,000 synthetic chemicals that do not break down naturally in the environment or the human body. The EPA’s 2023 health assessment for PFHxA identified “likely hepatic, developmental, hematopoietic, and endocrine effects” in exposed humans.⁶ Broader PFAS exposure has been associated with hormone disruption, decreased fertility, liver damage, and increased cancer risk.⁸

Apple’s Response

Apple has denied that its bands pose a health risk. In a statement to media, the company said: “Apple Watch bands are safe for users to wear. In addition to our own testing, we also work with independent laboratories to conduct rigorous testing and analysis of the materials used in our products, including Apple Watch bands.” The company pointed to a toxicological report it published in July 2022, “Integrating Toxicological Assessments in Material Selection for Apple Products.”⁹

Apple also announced a broader commitment in 2022 to phase out PFAS from its products and manufacturing processes, while acknowledging that “complete phaseout of PFAS from Apple products and processes will take time.” The company said it eliminated PFOA in 2010 and PFOS in 2013 but did not set a specific deadline for removing all PFAS.¹⁰

Where the Case Stands

Apple moved to dismiss the case after it was filed. On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge P.C.P. granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and implied warranty of merchantability but allowed the remaining claims, including fraudulent concealment, to proceed. The judge found that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated standing and pleaded a viable injury.¹¹ The court called the allegations that Apple was aware of the chemical risks but failed to warn consumers “sufficient” to move forward.¹²

The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 13, 2026, and Apple answered on June 1, 2026. As of mid-2026, no trial date has been set and no settlement has been reached. There is nothing to claim yet; the case remains in its early stages.¹

The fact that most of the case survived Apple’s motion is worth noting against the broader trend. Several courts have dismissed similar PFAS consumer suits where plaintiffs relied on third-party testing not linked to their actual purchases or failed to allege that their specific products contained PFAS. A Northern District of California court has ruled that testing for “organic fluorine” alone is not enough to plausibly allege the presence of PFAS.¹³

Samsung Settled a Nearly Identical Case

Apple is not the only company to face PFAS allegations over watch bands. A parallel case, Gonzalez v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-11234), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over Samsung’s Galaxy Watch Fluoroelastomer Band, Sport Band, Rugged Sport Band, and other models. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. closed that case on March 19, 2025, the same day the parties reported reaching a settlement. The terms were not publicly disclosed.¹⁴

Don’t Confuse This With the Apple Watch Battery Settlement

Anyone searching for Apple Watch class actions will also run across a separate case that has nothing to do with PFAS or bands. Smith v. Apple Inc. (Case No. 4:21-cv-09527, N.D. Cal.) alleged that the first four generations of Apple Watches (First Generation, Series 1, Series 2, and Series 3) suffered from swelling batteries that caused screens to detach, crack, or shatter. Apple agreed to a $20 million settlement fund, with eligible class members set to receive between $20 and $50 per covered watch and no claim form required for those already in Apple’s records as having reported battery swell issues between April 24, 2015, and February 6, 2024.¹⁵¹⁶ A fairness hearing was held on April 10, 2025. That case is unrelated to the PFAS litigation and does not compensate anyone for chemical exposure from watch bands.

1
CourtListener. Cavalier v. Apple Inc., 5:25-cv-00713
2
ClassAction.org. Cavalier et al. v. Apple Inc., Class Action Complaint
3
University of Notre Dame. Researchers Detect Elevated Levels of PFAS in Some Fitness Tracker and Smartwatch Bands
4
American Chemical Society. Presence of Perfluorohexanoic Acid in Fluoroelastomer Watch Bands
5
Environmental Working Group. Hidden Forever Chemicals in Popular High-End Smartwatch and Fitness Tracker Bands
6
ACS Axial. PFAS in Smartwatch Bands
7
PMC. Skin Permeability of Perfluorocarboxylic Acids
8
Chromatography Online. PFAS Identified in Smartwatch and Fitness Bands Using LC-MS/MS
9
Yahoo News. Apple Defends Watch Bands Amid PFAS Allegations
10
Apple Inc. Apple PFAS Commitment
11
Mealey’s Litigation Report. Judge Says PFAS Smartwatch Case Against Apple Valid as Plaintiffs Have Standing
12
Law360. Apple Can’t Shake Most PFAS Claims in Smartwatch Suit
13
Greenberg Traurig. Consumer Compass: Navigating the Consumer Products Legal Landscape
14
Law360. Samsung, LA Resident Settle Galaxy Wristband Suit
15
Courthouse News Service. Apple to Settle Apple Watch Defect Class Action for $20 Million
16
Watch Settlement. Smith et al. v. Apple Inc. Settlement