Apple Watch Bands Are Safe to Wear, Says Apple, After Lawsuit Filed - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Watch Bands Are Safe to Wear, Says Apple, After Lawsuit Filed

Following a class action lawsuit that alleges some Apple Watch bands contain toxic "forever chemicals," also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), Apple has ensured that Apple Watch bands are "safe for users to wear."

3 4 24 Sport Band Refresh Feature
Apple's full statement today:

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.

Apple said its efforts to remove potentially harmful chemicals from its products and manufacturing processes often exceed regulatory requirements.

Despite saying Apple Watch bands are safe to wear, Apple plans to phase out PFAS.

In a November 2022 document, Apple detailed its commitment to "completely phase out" its use of PFAS in its products and manufacturing processes. Apple said it would "take time" for this process to be completed, due to various challenges, including identifying and developing non-PFAS alternatives that meet certain "performance needs."

From the white paper:

We started with an assessment of the PFAS class with the highest use volume in our products — the fluoropolymers. While our analysis indicated that these materials are safe during product use, we felt it important to broaden our scope to consider manufacturing along the supply chain. We concluded that our goal needs to restrict the use of all PFAS compounds.

A complete phaseout of PFAS from Apple products and processes will take time. We need to compile a comprehensive catalog of PFAS use in electronics, identify and develop non-PFAS alternatives that can meet the performance needs for certain critical applications, and take into account the time needed for material qualification. Lastly we need to ensure that the non-PFAS alternatives do not result in regrettable substitutions — where alternatives are as harmful as, or even more harmful than, the PFAS being replaced.

The lawsuit cited a recent study that found some smartwatch bands contain "high levels" of PFAS, which can be absorbed through skin and lead to health problems. According to The Guardian, the study tested smartwatch models from Apple, Nike, Fitbit, and Google, but it apparently did not list any specific smartwatch bands containing PFAS by name.

Apple did not immediately respond when we asked which Apple Watch bands contain PFAS, if any. The lawsuit's proposed class is anyone in the U.S. who purchased a Sport Band, Nike Sport Band, or Ocean Band for an Apple Watch.

A judge still has to decide whether to allow the class action to proceed.

Related Roundup: Apple Watch 11
Buyer's Guide: Apple Watch (Neutral)

Popular Stories

iOS 26

iOS 26.4 Adds Two New Features to CarPlay

Tuesday March 24, 2026 1:55 pm PDT by
iOS 26.4 was released today, and it includes a couple of new features for CarPlay: an Ambient Music widget and support for voice-based chatbot apps. To update your iPhone 11 or newer to iOS 26.4, open the Settings app and tap on General → Software Update. CarPlay will automatically offer the new features so long as the iPhone connected to your vehicle is running iOS 26.4 or later....
Apple Business hero

Apple Unveils 'Apple Business' All-in-One Platform

Tuesday March 24, 2026 8:53 am PDT by
Apple today announced Apple Business, a new all-in-one platform that unifies device management, productivity tools, and customer outreach features. The service is designed to be a consolidated replacement for several of Apple's existing business-focused offerings, including Apple Business Essentials, Apple Business Manager, and Apple Business Connect. It provides organizations with a single...
AirPods Pro Firmware Feature

Apple Releases New Firmware for AirPods Pro 3, AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods 4

Tuesday March 24, 2026 12:31 pm PDT by
Apple today released new firmware for the AirPods Pro 2, AirPods Pro 3, and the AirPods 4. The firmware has a version number of 8B39, up from 8B34 on the AirPods Pro 3, 8B28 on the AirPods Pro 2, and 8B21 on the AirPods 4. There is no word on what's included in the firmware, but Apple has a support document with limited notes. Most updates are limited to bug fixes and performance...

Top Rated Comments

FlyingDutch Avatar
15 months ago
In the meanwhile a lot of people is buying cheap Chinese bands from Amazon , unaware of what are containing…
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
15 months ago
With all due respect, Apple’s statement is from a public relations spokesperson and does not really address the issue raised in the lawsuit.

Apple’s statement is also contradictory because 1) Spokesperson says the bands are safe to wear, but 2) Apple is working on a multi-year process to phase out PFAS. If there is no safety issue with PFAS, then why are they phasing them out?
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
15 months ago

With all due respect, Apple’s statement is from a public relations spokesperson and does not really address the issue raised in the lawsuit.

Apple’s statement is also contradictory because 1) Spokesperson says the bands are safe to wear, but 2) Apple is working on a multi-year process to phase out PFAS. If there is no safety issue with PFAS, then why are they phasing them out?
You didn't read (or didn't comprehend) the article. Apple's position as given in the white paper is that Apple bands containing PFAS are safe to wear for users, but that producing and distributing products containing PFAS has harmful effects. This can be, for example, to the environment near production sites. If I'm not mistaken, PFAS are common in things like nonstick pans, where they are extremely stable and unlikely to cause harm under ideal conditions. But in that case, extended or repeated exposure to high heat can denature the pan or scratches can result in PFAS leaching into food. My point is just that it seems reasonable that PFAS in, say, the Sport Band, are exceptionally unlikely to be exposed to the conditions that would make it harmful to users. Although environmentally safer alternatives should of course be used if they exist or can be engineered.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
15 months ago
However this situation unfolds and whatever details come to light, the important thing is we need to jump to conclusions as fast as possible.
Score: 18 Votes (Like | Disagree)
15 months ago
Source: Trust me bro
Score: 15 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Reverend Benny Avatar
15 months ago

I agree 100% Apple should just go back to leather. Leather is basically a 'waste' product from cows for consumption, and it's pure natural. So basically if you ever eat any form of beef you should also be okay with using leather.
Leather can contain PFAS as well, what you get isn't a natural product, its treated with a pile of chemicals before it ends up as a "natural" product.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/pfas-in-textiles-in-europes-circular-economy
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)