Technology

Cheaters Never Win, Bungie’s 4.3 Million Dollar Award Against AimJunkies

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / 1 Comment
Photo by Soumil Kumar on Pexels.com

By: Perry Maybrown

Does anyone else remember being a kid, getting stuck on that super hard level and having to insert a Game Genie or GameShark into their machine to activate cheats? Apparently Nintendo really did not like these types of add-ons, so they sued the company that made them, and lost. But in today’s internet age, cheating has gotten more sophisticated, and much more illegal. 

Earlier this month, AimJunkies.com, a website that offers video game cheats for sale, was ordered by an arbitration judge to pay Bungie 4.3 million dollars after being sued for copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Bungie followed up by filing a motion with the court, to affirm this monetary award. 

Bungie brought nine claims in its original complaint filed in 2021 . The company argued that AimJunkies had infringed upon their copyright of Destiny 2, by “copying, producing, preparing unauthorized derivative works from, distributing and/or displaying Destiny 2 publicly all without Bungie’s permission.” Under those same facts, AimJunkies also infringed upon Bungie’s Destiny 2 trademarks. Furthermore, by making use of Bungie’s trademarks and copyrights, AimJunkies was also accused of false designation of origin. As well as two separate DMCA violations, breach of contract, tortious interference, consumer protection act violations and unjust enrichment. 

Later in 2022, a court dismissed Bungie’s copyright infringement allegations, for failure to state a claim. And while the copyright issue was dismissed, the door was still left open by the judge for Bungie to refile the claim later, with more evidence. Which Bungie unsurprisingly did. The court later upheld this amended complaint when AimJunkies once again tried to get it dismissed. 

After substantial litigation, Bungie decided to change tactics. Rather than attacking AimJunkies in court, they would drag them into mandatory arbitration.  This was accomplished by citing Destiny 2’s user agreement. Whenever a user plays games online, they are usually required to sign some kind of user agreement, which almost alway includes a mandatory arbitration agreement. Arbitration is a process that happens out of court, where two sides argue their case to a neutral arbitrator (usually a retired judge). There is a lot of controversy surrounding mandatory arbitration. For one thing, the “neutral” party deciding the case is usually paid/hired by whatever company included the arbitration agreement in the first place. It’s also difficult to overturn an arbitration agreement, as decisions can only be challenged for a limited number of very specific issues. 

A judge agreed to allow claims four through nine in Bungie’s lawsuit to be decided by mandatory arbitration. This meant that JAMS, one of the world’s largest private alternative dispute resolution providers, would be overseeing these six claims. Thus beginning the long, 9 month, process of arbitration. Bungie won and was awarded more than $4 million in damages as reported by TorrentFreak. 

So how did the arbitrator reach that huge number? It’s mostly thanks to the DMCA. The DMCA is an amendment to the copyright act from 1998 which seeks to address the relationship between the internet and copyright. The DMCA includes a section also referred to as the anti-circumvention law, which makes it illegal to knowingly circumvent a copyrighted work’s electronic security measures. For example, most video games have some kind of security measure, or Digital Rights Management (DRM) that stops users from getting into the source code. But some bad actors will sneak around these protections, so they can get a peek into the code. This allows those same bad actors unfettered access to the games, making it possible for them to reverse engineer different systems or download the game itself and share it. In this case the arbitrator found that AimJunkies had circumvented Destiny 2’s DRM to see the code and develop an effective cheat. Following § 1203 of the DMCA, the arbitrator awarded Bungie 2,500 per violation. With  102 violations, that meant AimJunkies was fined $255,000 for just one of Bungie’s six claims. 

Additionally, by hosting the cheats and selling them, the arbiter found that AimJunkies was in violation of the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA. This is where the costs really start to stack up. Just like the previous issue, Bungie was granted $2,500 per violation. With more than  1,316 copies of the Destiny 2 cheat sold, AimJunkies faced a whopping  $3,402,500.00 in anti-trafficking violations.

Finally, Bungie was awarded a further $738,722 in costs and attorney’s fees after proving AimJunkies had committed spoliation, the intentional destruction of evidence. This was found on the grounds that AimJunkies failed to keep proper financial records even after receiving a cease and desist letter from Bungie, which the arbitrator found to be a purposeful choice.

While this is a huge win for Bungie, the war is not over. As of February 28, 2023, AimJunkies is attempting to contest the arbitration decision. While it is unclear whether they will succeed, it’s a good lesson for us all. Just like the old saying goes, cheaters never win.

Talking to Machines – The Legal Implications of ChatGPT

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment

By: Stephanie Ngo

Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, known as ChatGPT, was launched on November 30, 2022.  The program has since swept the world by storm with its articulate answers and detailed responses to a multitude of questions. A quick Google Search of “chat gpt” amasses approximately 171 million results. Similarly, in the first five days of launch, more than a million people had signed up to test the chatbot, according to OpenAI’s president, Greg Brockman. But with new technology comes legal issues that require legal solutions. As ChatGPT continues to grow in popularity, it is now more important than ever to discuss how such a smart system could affect the legal field. 

What is Artificial Intelligence? 

Artificial intelligence (AI), per John McCarthy, a world-renowned computer scientist at Stanford University, is “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs, that can be used to understand human intelligence.” The first successful AI program was written in 1951 to play a game of checkers, but the idea of “robots” taking on human-like characteristics has been traced back even earlier. Recently, it has been predicted that AI, although prominent now, will permeate the daily lives of individuals by 2025 and seep into various business sectors.  Today, the buzz around AI stems from the fast-growing influx of  emerging technologies, and how AI can be integrated with current technology to innovate products like self-driving cars, electronic medical records, and personal assistants. Many are aware of what “Siri” is, and consumers’ expectations that Siri will soon become all-knowing is what continues to push the field of AI to develop at such fast speeds.

What is ChatGPT? 

ChatGPT is a chatbot that uses a large language model trained by OpenAI. OpenAI is an AI research and deployment company founded in 2015 dedicated to ensuring that artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity. ChatGPT was trained with data from items such as books and other written materials to generate natural and conversational responses, as if a human had written the reply. Chatbots are not a recent invention. In 2019, Salesforce reported that twenty-three percent of service organizations used AI chatbots. In 2021, Salesforce reported the percentage is now closer to thirty-eight percent of organizations, a sixty-seven percent increase since their 2018 report. The effectiveness, however, left many consumers wishing for a faster, smarter way of getting accurate answers.

In comes ChatGPT, which has been hailed as the “best artificial intelligence chatbot ever released to the general public” by technology columnist, Kevin Roose from the New York Times. ChatGPT’s ability to answer extremely convoluted questions, explain scientific concepts, or even debug large amounts of code is indicative of just how far chatbots have advanced since their creation. Prior to ChatGPT, answers from chatbots were taken with a grain of salt because of the inaccurate, roundabout responses that were likely programmed from a template. ChatGPT, while still imperfect and slightly outdated (its knowledge is restricted to information from before 2021), is being used in manners that some argue could impact many different occupations and render certain inventions obsolete.

The Legal Issues with ChatGPT

ChatGPT has widespread applicability, being touted as rivaling Google in its usage. Since the beta launch in November, there have been countless stories from people in various occupations about ChatGPT’s different use cases. Teachers can use ChatGPT to draft quiz questions. Job seekers can use it to draft and revise cover letters and resumes. Doctors have used the chatbot to diagnose a patient, write letters to insurance companies,  and even do certain medical examinations. 

On the other hand, ChatGPT has its downsides. One of the main arguments against ChatGPT is that the chatbot’s responses are so natural that students may use it to shirk their homework or plagiarize. To combat the issue of academic dishonesty and misinformation, OpenAI has begun work on accompanying software and training a classifier to distinguish between AI-written text and human-written text. While not wholly reliable, OpenAI has noted the classifier will become more reliable the longer it is trained.

Another argument that has arisen involves intellectual property issues. Is the material that ChatGPT produces legal to use? In a similar situation, a different artificial intelligence program, Stable Diffusion, was trained to replicate an artist’s style of illustration and create new artwork based upon the user’s prompt. The artist was concerned that the program’s creations would be associated with her name because the training used her artwork.

Because of how new the technology is, the case law addressing this specific issue is limited. In January 2023, Getty Images, a popular stock photo company, commenced legal proceedings against Stability AI, the creators of Stable Diffusion, in the High Court of Justice in London, claiming Stability AI had infringed on intellectual property rights in content owned or represented by Getty Images absent a license and to the detriment of the content creators. A group of artists have also filed a class-action lawsuit against companies with AI art tools, including Stable AI, alleging the violation of rights of millions of artists. Regarding ChatGPT, when asked about any potential legal issues, the chatbot stated that “there should not be any legal issues” as long as the chatbot is used according to the terms and conditions set by the company and with the appropriate permissions and licenses needed, if any. 
Last, but certainly not least, ChatGPT is unable to assess whether the chatbot itself is compliant with the protection of personal data under state privacy laws, as well as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Known by many as the gold-standard of privacy regulations, ChatGPT’s lack of privacy compliance with the GDPR or any privacy laws could have serious consequences if a user feeds ChatGPT sensitive information. OpenAI’s privacy policy does state that the company may collect any communication information that a user communicates with the feature, so it is important for anyone using ChatGPT to pause and think about the impact that sharing information with the chatbot will have before proceeding. As ChatGPT improves and advances, the legal implications are likely to only grow in turn.

Are 3D printed human organs a possibility in the near future?

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / 1 Comment
Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

By: Aminat Sanusi

Medically 3D printed human organs have the possibility to save many lives. The United Network for Organ Sharing controls the American transplant system and lists patients in need of an organ transplant. Procedures such as kidney and liver transplants are possible with living donors. But patients on the list for transplants of the heart and lungs are not so lucky. Imagine the infinite possibilities of being able to print a human organ to save a life, instead of waiting until someone died to use theirs? With constant innovation in medicine and the legal field trying to keep up, maybe in this decade or the next, medical trials of 3D printed organs will be a success.

In 2020, the average kidney transplant cost $442,500 and 3D printers cost up to $100,000. The expensive costs of organ transplant surgery come from the transport costs and the actual surgery of implanting the organ. Affordability and insurance coverage issues may arise from time to time but nothing extremely unusual from a normal organ transplant. Nevertheless, accessibility wouldn’t be a huge issue because the organ is created with the patient’s own cells versus a living or non-living organ donor.

What are the current regulations of 3D printed medical devices?

Medical 3D printing has already enhanced treatment for certain medical conditions such as joint replacements and prosthetic limbs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently in charge of the regulation of products made and used in the medical field by a 3D printer. The FDA regulates 3D medical devices by categorizing them into groups based on their levels of risk. Regulatory control increases from Class I to Class III, with Class I devices posing the lowest risk to patients. Some requirements apply to the medical devices before they are marketed (premarket requirements), and others apply to the medical devices after they are marketed (postmarket requirements). 

The FDA also regulates the information and application process that the 3D printed medical device seeking acceptance should include. In 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance to assist manufacturers who are producing medical devices through 3D printing with design, manufacturing, and testing considerations. The guidance categorizes two major topic areas: design and manufacturing considerations which addresses the quality sy draft guidance tstem of the device, and device testing considerations which addresses the type of information that should be included in premarket notification submissions. The FDA continues to evaluate submissions of new 3D printed medical devices to determine its safety and effectiveness.

How are 3D printed organs made?

The possibility of printing 3D human organs is in the near future with organ bioprinting. According to a 2019 medical study, organ bioprinting is the use of 3D printing technologies to assemble multiple cell types, growth factors and biomaterial in a layer-by-layer fashion to produce bioartificial organs that ideally imitate their natural counterparts. The ability to recreate organs with the patient’s own cells is key to avoiding the risk of the patient rejecting the organ or dying before they could be matched with a healthy organ.

Dr. Anthony Atala, the director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and Dr. Jennifer Lewis, a professor at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, discuss and explain the process of bioprinting. To begin the process of bioprinting an organ, the doctors need the patient’s cells, so they either choose to do a biopsy of an organ or surgically remove a piece of tissue from the patient’s body. Now the cells need to grow outside of the body, so it’s placed into an incubator that way it’s constantly fed nutrients. Next the cells are mixed with a gel which is similar to glue to create a printable mixture of living cells. Typically the gel is made out of collagen or gelatin. 

For the printing process, the 3D printer is programmed with the patient’s imaging data from X-rays or scans and then loaded with the bioink, which is the gel mixed with the patient’s cells, into the printing chamber to print the organ. Much similar to a regular printer that has cartridges filled with different colored ink, the 3D printer fills up its cartridges with cells. The printing process could take hours to weeks depending on the type of organ that is being printed.

As technological innovation becomes more successful and precise, 3D-printed organ transplants will likely become reality. However, there are current challenges involved with 3D bioprinted organ transplants. The first issue is the functioning of the 3D bioprinted organ is still undergoing testing and trials. The second issue is the uncertainty of how FDA regulations will control the manufacturing and testing of the 3D bioprinted organs. Lastly, the accessibility and affordability of the 3D printed organs is currently limited. 

3D bioprinted organs are created to be complex like a human organ and there are still many challenges to overcome with getting the printed organ to properly function alongside the other human organs in the body. It is still unclear how FDA regulations will be able to control the usage and safety of the product versus the manufacturing and engineering of the product. While there are already procedures in place for 3D printed medical devices like prosthetic limbs which could potentially be applied to bioprinted organs, the regulation of device testing may change because of the use of human cells to print the organs. 

So what comes next?

3D printed medical devices already exist. But why stop there? Why not 3D print human organs? In the award-winning American medical drama television series Grey’s Anatomy, the surgeon 3D printed a part of a human heart and surgically implanted it into the patient. Although the idea of it seems plausible on TV, the reality is a 3D printed human organ has yet to be implanted into a human body. However, that does not mean that 3D printing has not been utilized in the medical field.

Post-Dobbs: A Whole New World of Privacy Law

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by ThisIsEngineering from Pexels

By: Enny Olaleye

Last summer, The United States was rocked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark decision striking down the right to abortion, thereby overruling both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In its wake, the Dobbs decision left many questioning whether their most sensitive information—information relating to their reproductive health care—would remain private. Dobbs set in motion a web of state laws which make having, providing, or aiding and abetting the provision of abortion a criminal offense, and many now fear that enforcing those laws will require data tracking. Private groups and state agencies ranging from the health tech sector to hospitality industries may be asked to turn over data as a form of cooperation or a part of their prosecution of these new crimes. 

Thus, the question arises: Exactly how much of my information is actually private?

When determining one’s respective right to privacy, it is important to consider what “privacy” actually is. Ultimately, the scope of privacy is wide-ranging. Some may consider the term by its literal definition, where privacy is the quality or state of being apart from company or observation. Alternatively, some may conceptualize privacy a bit further and view privacy as 

a dignitary right focused on knowledge someone may or may not possess about a person. Others may not view privacy by its definition at all, but rather cement their views in the belief that a person’s private information should be free from public scrutiny and that all people have a right to be left alone. 

Regardless of one’s opinions on privacy, it is important to understand that, with respect to the U.S Constitution, you have no explicitly recognized right to privacy. 

How could that be possible?  Some may point to the First Amendment, which preserves a person’s rights of speech and assembly or perhaps the Fourth Amendment, which restricts the government’s intrusion into people’s private property and belongings. However, these amendments focus more on a specific right to privacy with respect to freedom and liberty, with the goal of limiting government interference. They do not constitute an explicit, overarching constitutional right to privacy. While the right to privacy is not specifically listed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an outgrowth of protections for individual liberty. 

In Griswold v, Connecticut, the Supreme Court concluded that people have privacy rights that prevent the government from forbidding married couples from using contraception. Such a ruling first identified people’s right to independently control the most personal aspects of their lives—thus creating an implicit right to privacy. Later, the Court extended this right of privacy to include a woman’s right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade, holding that “the right of decisional privacy is based in the Constitution’s assurance that people cannot be ‘deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.’” The Roe decision was largely made by the notion that the 14th Amendment contains an implicit right to privacy, as well as protects against state interference in a person’s private decisions more generally. However, the Dobbs ruling has now dismissed this precedent, with the implicit right of privacy no longer extending to abortion. With a 6-3 majority, the Court reasoned that abortion lacked due process protection, as it was not mentioned in the Constitution and was outlawed in many states at the time of the Roe decision. 

Fast forward to today—some government entities have attempted to make progress in preserving an individual’s privacy, particularly in relation to their healthcare. The Biden administration released an executive order aimed at protecting access to abortion and treatment for pregnancy complications. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission has started to implement federal privacy rules for consumer data, citing “a need to protect people’s right to seek healthcare information.” However, most of this progress centers on a misconception that “privacy” and “data protection” are the same thing. 

So, let’s set the record straight: privacy and data protection are not the same thing. 

While data protection does stem from the right to privacy, it mainly focuses on ensuring that data has been fairly processed. With the concept of privacy constantly being intertwined with freedom and liberty over the past few decades, it can be difficult for people to fully grasp which exactly of their information is private. The Dobbs majority pointed out a distinction between privacy and liberty, citing that “as to precedent, citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional ‘right of personal privacy.’ But Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.” 

There is a valid concern that personal information, ranging from instant messages and location history to third-party app usage and digital records, can end up being subpoenaed or sold to law enforcement. In response to the Dobbs decision, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a guidance that unless a state law “expressly requires” reporting on certain health conditions, the HIPAA exemption for disclosure to law enforcement would not apply. However, some people may not realize that the application privacy agreements and HIPAA medical privacy rules are not automatically protected against subpoenas. Wholeheartedly, data brokers will not hesitate to sell to the highest bidder any and all personal information they have access to. 

“So now what?” 


Ultimately, the Dobbs decision serves as a rather harsh reminder of just how valuable our privacy is, and what can happen if we lose it. As some of us have already realized, companies, governments, and even our peers are incredibly interested in our private lives. With respect to protecting reproductive freedom, it is imperative to establish federal privacy laws that protect information related to health care from being handed over to law enforcement unless doing so is absolutely necessary to avert substantial public harm. While it is unfortunate that individuals are placed in positions where they are solely responsible for protecting themselves against corporate or governmental surveillance, it is imperative for everyone to remain vigilant and aware of where their information is going.

Apple AirTags – Stalking made easy in the age of convenience

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo Credit: Zachary Zylak

By: Kayleigh McNiel

Marketed as a means of locating lost or stolen items, Apple AirTags are a convenient and affordable tool for tracking down your lost keys, misplaced luggage, and even your ex-partner. Weighing less than half an ounce, these small tracking devices fit in the palm of your hand and can be easily hidden inside backpacks, purses, and vehicles without arousing the owner’s suspicion. 

Reports of AirTag stalking began emerging almost immediately upon their release in April of 2021. Apple’s assurances that AirTag’s built-in abuse prevention features would protect against “unwanted tracking” have fallen woefully short of the reality that these $29 devices are increasingly being used to monitor, surveil and stalk women across the country.

The Wrong Tool in the Wrong Hands – Women Are Being Targeted with AirTags

Through an expansive review of 150 police reports involving Apple AirTags from eight law enforcement agencies across the nation, an investigative report by Motherboard confirmed the disturbing truth. One third of the reports were filed by women who received notifications that they were being tracked by someone else’s AirTag. The majority of these cases involved women being stalked by a current or former partner. Of the 150 reports reviewed by Motherboard, less than half involved people using their own AirTags to find their lost or stolen property.   

AirTags pose a significant danger to victims of domestic violence and have been used in at least two grisly murders. In January 2022, Heidi Moon, a 43-year-old mother from Akron, Ohio, was shot and killed by her abusive ex-boyfriend who tracked her movements using an AirTag hidden in the back seat of her car. In June 2022, Andre Smith, a 26-year-old Indianapolis man, died after he was repeatedly run over by his girlfriend after she found him at a bar with another woman by tracking him with an AirTag.

It’s not just domestic violence victims who are in danger. Stories are emerging on social media of women discovering AirTags under their license plate covers or receiving notifications that they are being tracked after traveling in public places. One woman’s viral TikTok describes how she received repeated notifications that an unknown device was tracking her after visiting a Walmart in Texas. Unable to locate the device, she tried unsuccessfully to disable it, and continued receiving notifications even after she turned off the location services and Bluetooth on all of her Apple devices.   

In January 2022, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model Book Nader discovered that a stranger slipped an Apple AirTag into her coat pocket while she was sitting in a restaurant. The device tracked her location for hours before the built-in safety mechanism triggered a notification sent to her phone. 

One Georgia woman, Anna Mahaney, began receiving the alerts after going to a shopping mall but was unable to locate the tracker. When she tried to disable the device, she received an error message that it was unable to connect to the server. She immediately went to an Apple Store for help and was told that no beep sounded because the owner of the AirTag had apparently tracked her until she got home and then disabled it. 

Apple’s haphazard release of these button-sized trackers, with near complete disregard for the danger they pose to the public, has resulted in a recent federal class action lawsuit filed by two California women who were stalked by men using AirTags. One plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, was tracked by her ex-husband who hid an AirTag in their child’s backpack. The other plaintiff, Lauren Hughes, fled her home and moved into a hotel after being stalked and threatened by a man she dated for only three months. After she began receiving notifications that an AirTag was tracking her, Hughes found one in the wheel well of her back tire. 

The plaintiffs in Hughes et al v. Apple, Inc., 3:22-cv-07668, say Apple ignored the warnings from advocates and put the safety of consumers and the general public at risk by “revolutionizing the scope, breadth, and ease of location-based stalking.” 

The Tech Behind the Tags – Insufficient Safety Warnings and a Lack of Prevention

AirTags work by establishing a Bluetooth connection with nearby Apple devices. Once connected, it uses that device’s GPS and internet connection to transmit the AirTag’s location to the iCloud where users can track it via the Find My app. With a vast network of more than 1.8 billion Apple devices worldwide, AirTags can essentially track anyone, anywhere.  

While the accuracy of Bluetooth tracking can vary, newer iPhone devices (models 11 and up) come equipped with ultra-wide broadband technology that allows AirTag owners to use Precision Tracking to get within feet of its location. 

In its initial release in April 2021, Apple included minimal safety measures including alerts that inform iPhone users if someone else’s AirTag had been traveling with them.Additionally, AirTags chime if separated from its owner after three days. 

When someone discovers an AirTag and taps it with their iPhone, it tells them only the information the owner allows. If an AirTag has been separated from its owner for somewhere between eight and twenty-four hours, it begins chirping regularly. By then, the AirTag owner may have already been able to track their target for hours, learning where they live, work, or go to school. The chirp is only about 60 decibels which is the average sound level of a restaurant or office. This sound is easy to muffle especially if the AirTag is hidden under a car license plate or in a wheel well. This quiet alarm is the only automatic protection against stalking Apple can provide to those who do not have an iPhone. 

Apple did eventually release an app that Android users can download to scan for rogue AirTags, but it requires Android users to know about AirTag tracking and then manually scan for the devices. With only 2.4 stars, many complain that it is ineffective and does not provide enough information.  

In response to the wave of criticism and reports of stalking and harassment, Apple has begun to increase these safety measures in piecemeal updates, which so far have failed to resolve the problem. Just three months after its release, Apple shortened the amount of time it takes for AirTags to chime if separated from its owner; from three days to somewhere between eight and twenty-four hours. But it’s easy to register an AirTag, and then disable it before the target begins receiving notifications.

Our Legal Systems Are Not Prepared to Protect Victims From AirTag Stalking.

Our criminal and civil legal systems are painfully slow to respond to the way technology has changed the way we engage with our families and communities and how we experience harm in those relationships. One of the biggest challenges victims face in reporting AirTag stalking is that many police departments and Courts do not even know what AirTags are or how they can be used to harass and stalk women.

In some states, it is not even a crime to monitor someone’s movements with a tracking device like an AirTag without their knowledge or consent. At least 26 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of law prohibiting the tracking of others without their knowledge. While 11 of these states, including Washington, incorporate this into their stalking statutes, nine others (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin) only prohibit the use of location-tracking devices on motor vehicles without the owner’s consent. These state laws do nothing to protect against AirTags being placed in your bag or purse. These laws also don’t protect those who share a vehicle with their abuser, since the other party is also technically the owner of the vehicle. 

Many states are rapidly seeing the need to beef up their laws in response to AirTags. The Attorneys General of both New York and Pennsylvania have issued consumer protection alerts warning people about the dangers of AirTags. But much more needs to be done.

The fact that Apple released this product without considering the disproportionate impact it would have on the safety of women across the globe shows a clear lack of diversity in Apple’s design and manufacturing process.