Federal lawsuits accusing Apple of releasing the AirTag without adequate protection against stalking will now move forward together. On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3199 and sent the cases to Judge Noël Wise in the Northern District of California.
The new proceeding is called In re: Apple AirTag Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The Panel transferred seventeen actions pending in thirteen federal districts, and noted twelve more related actions in ten districts that may be added later. The court opened the MDL docket, No. 5:26-md-03199, the same day.
What Did the Panel Decide?
The Panel found that the cases share common questions of fact and that handling them together would serve the parties, the witnesses and the courts. In its words, the cases arise from allegations that Apple released the AirTag with inadequate safety features to prevent it from being misused for stalking.
Each plaintiff alleges that someone, often a perpetrator of domestic violence, hid one or more AirTags in their belongings, their car or their child’s belongings, and that the AirTag’s safety features did not stop the person from secretly tracking them. Those are allegations. No court has found Apple liable.
The Panel listed the common questions it expects the cases to share:
- What Apple knew, when it released the AirTag, about the risk that it would be used for criminal conduct
- Whether Apple included adequate safeguards to prevent the AirTag from being used for stalking
- Whether safer alternative designs were available and feasible
- How Apple responded to reports that stalkers were using the AirTag to track victims
Why Did Apple Oppose Centralization?
Apple opposed creating an MDL. It argued that questions specific to each person’s case would overwhelm the common ones, and compared the litigation to a group of abuse cases the Panel had declined to centralize. Apple also argued that the common discovery had already happened, and asked in the alternative for the cases to go to the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiffs who filed the motion asked for the District of Arizona.
The Panel disagreed with Apple. It said the plaintiffs’ allegations are uniform enough that the AirTag’s design, and whether alternative designs were available, will be central questions in every case. It pointed out that one alleged defect concerns how and when iPhone users get alerts, and that for plaintiffs who own an Apple device, their own device may have been part of the network that shared their location with their stalker.
The Panel also said the earlier discovery in the Hughes class case focused narrowly on class certification. Apple had not yet produced corporate witnesses for depositions, and expert discovery on design defects had not begun.
Why the Northern District of California?
Most of the plaintiffs had been part of Hughes v. Apple, Inc., a proposed class action that proceeded in the Northern District of California for about three years before the class was denied and the claims were severed. The Panel also noted that Apple is headquartered in the district, which will help discovery, and that the court can coordinate with related cases in California state courts.
The Panel assigned the litigation to Judge Noël Wise, describing her as a capable jurist who has not yet served as a transferee judge. The case number begins with 5, which marks the court’s San Jose division.
Has Apple Settled Any AirTag Cases?
The Panel’s order says Apple has settled some cases involving the AirTag, but that settlement activity has slowed or stalled since the motion to centralize was filed. The order does not name those cases or describe any terms.
The Panel also noted that plaintiffs say Apple has received tens of thousands of stalking complaints related to the AirTag, which suggests that more lawsuits may follow. That figure is the plaintiffs’ statement, as reported by the Panel. It is not a finding.
There is no AirTag stalking class settlement and no claims fund. The class in Hughes was denied, so each case in the MDL is an individual lawsuit.
What Happens Next?
Early MDL orders usually set up how the litigation will be organized, including leadership for the plaintiffs and a schedule for filing and discovery. CBW will update this article as Judge Wise issues orders. Related cases filed in other federal courts may be transferred into the MDL as tag-along actions.
Were You Tracked With an AirTag Without Your Consent?
If someone used an Apple AirTag to track you, our Apple AirTag stalking lawsuit page explains what the lawsuits allege, what to do if you find an AirTag, and who may have a claim. You do not need the AirTag itself to reach out. Request a free case review.
If you are in danger right now, go to a safe place and call 911. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is available 24/7 at 1-800-799-7233.
Submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Each potential claim is evaluated individually, and no outcome can be promised.
This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.