What is summary judgment in Fitbit case?
Fitbit seeks summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) its representations are not false; (2) consumers were not deceived and did not rely on the representations; (3) aberrant sleep readings could have been caused by user error; and (4) plaintiffs cannot show they are entitled to damages. See Dkt. No. 153 at 1-2. These are the main issues in the case, and they are replete with disputes of fact for which both sides have more than merely colorable evidence. Consequently, summary judgment is denied across the board and the case will proceed to trial for resolution . For the sake of clarity, illustrations of some of the fact disputes are discussed for each argument.
Does Fitbit track sleep?
The basic facts are undisputed. Fitbit is a well-known maker of wearable fitness devices. Starting in 2009, Fitbit released several models that it marketed as equipped with sleep-tracking. The models in dispute here are the Fitbit Ultra, One, and Flex. Brickman, 2017 WL 5569827, at *1. Fitbit made the same representations about sleep functionality for all of the devices, including on product packaging. Id. Among other statements, Fitbit represented that the devices could track "hours slept," "times woken up," and "quality of sleep." Fitbit also presented images of charts and graphs displaying the data the devices were said to collect. Id. The devices use an accelerometer to detect movement. Dkt. No. 153 at 3.
Who is the settlement agreement between Fitbit and the company?
This Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”) is made by and between: (1) Fitbit, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Fitbit”) and (2) James P. Brickman, Margaret Clingman, Carissa Ray, Michael Landis, Erica Wathey, Stephanie Curtis, Carolyn Ciavarella, Amanda Samy, and James Gau (“Class Representatives”), individually and as representatives of their respective “Settlement Sub-Classes” as defined below (collectively the “Parties”).
What is an amendment to a settlement subclass?
amendment of the Complaint to conform the complaint to the Settlement Sub-Classes definition set out in Section I.A; and (ii) that any and all dismissals pursuant to the Agreement will be vacated, and the Action will resume in the Court. C. In the event that the Court does not approve the Fee Award or Service Awards set forth in Sections V.A and V.B in the amounts requested by Class Counsel, or in the event that the Fee Award or Service Awards requested by Class Counsel are reduced, that finding shall not be a basis for rendering the entire Agreement null, void, or unenforceable. Class Counsel retains their right to appeal any decision by the Court regarding the Fee Award and Service Awards.
When was the case 3:15-CV-02077-JD filed?
NOW, THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, for good and valuable consideration, the Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 263-1 Filed 11/02/18 Page 5 of 71
Does Fitbit pay attorney fees?
Attorneys’ Fees Except as otherwise provided here in, Fitbit agrees to pay all of the actual costs (including but not limited to sorting, merging and mailing and e-mailing notice; arranging publication notice; processing claims and inquiries regarding this settlement; distributing settlement benefits; Case 3:15-cv-02077-JD Document 263-1 Filed 11/02/18 Page 7 of 71
Re: Dkt. Nos. 153, 154
- JAMES DONATO, District Judge. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit") misled consumers about the functionality of sleep tracking on its wearable devices. Dkt. No. 60. The Court recently certified California and Florida state-law classes, Brickman, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02077-JD, 2017 WL 5569827 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 201...
Background
- The basic facts are undisputed. Fitbit is a well-known maker of wearable fitness devices. Starting in 2009, Fitbit released several models that it marketed as equipped with sleep-tracking. The models in dispute here are the Fitbit Ultra, One, and Flex. Brickman, 2017 WL 5569827, at *1. Fitbit made the same representations about sleep functionality for all of the devices, including on prod…
Legal Standards
- "A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense — or the part of each claim or defense — on which summary judgment is sought. The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court may dispose …
Discussion
- Fitbit seeks summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) its representations are not false; (2) consumers were not deceived and did not rely on the representations; (3) aberrant sleep readings could have been caused by user error; and (4) plaintiffs cannot show they are entitled to damages. SeeDkt. No. 153 at 1-2. These are the main issues in the case, and they are replete with dispute…
I. The Tracking Representations
- Fitbit says it is entitled to summary judgment on its marketing representations because actigraphy, which is said to monitor sleep by assessing physical movement, is a valid and reliable way to track sleep that is used by sleep scientists. Id. at 8. Fitbit contends that there is no genuine dispute about the ability of actigraphy to track "hours slept," "times woken up," and "sleep quality.…
II. Device Performance and The Daubert Challenge
- Fitbit says that its devices performed as represented and that plaintiffs do not have evidence showing the devices failed to track sleep. Id.at 9. This too entails disputed issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. As an initial matter, plaintiffs have tendered witness testimony that Fitbit's devices recorded false positives, indicating that the user was asleep when she was, in fa…
III. Consumer Deception and Reliance
- Fitbit argues that plaintiffs have no evidence they were individually deceived, that members of the public are likely to be deceived, that the sleep-tracking representations were material, or that they relied on the sleep-tracking representations. Dkt. No. 153 at 14. It is enough for present purposes to note that these issues are strongly contested by the parties on conflicting evidence, and so ar…
IV. Damages
- Fitbit's last argument is that plaintiffs cannot prove individual or classwide damages. Id. at 22-25. As the Court stated in the certification order, "Plaintiffs are now committed to seeking damages in the form of the price difference between Fitbit devices with sleep tracking and equivalent devices without it, with adjustments for other feature differences as warranted. They intend to rely on Fit…
Conclusion
- Summary judgment is denied. The motion to strike Dr. Montgomery-Downs's report and opinions is denied. The pre-trial conference is set for 1:30 p.m. on March 22, 2018. Trial is set for 9:00 a.m. on April 30, 2018. IT IS SO ORDERED.