Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Apple, Inc. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is general information, not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action filed June 24, 2026 accuses Apple of letting third parties track users of its Safari web browser through "fingerprinting," even though Apple markets Safari as a private, anti-tracking browser. The case, Simpson v. Apple, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case No. 5:26-cv-06307), by named plaintiff Sarah Simpson, a California resident who says she bought two new iPhones in 2025 and relied on Apple's privacy promises.According to the complaint, Apple advertises Safari with slogans like "Privacy. That's Apple." and "Blazing Fast. Incredibly Private," and promotes features such as Intelligent Tracking Prevention, Private Browsing, and a "Privacy Report." The plaintiff alleges that despite these representations, Safari transmits identifying information that lets advertisers and data brokers fingerprint and follow users across the web — and that the protections Apple touts do not work as advertised. Apple has not yet responded to the complaint, and none of the allegations have been tested in court.
How Apple Markets Safari's Privacy
The complaint leans heavily on Apple's own advertising. It alleges Apple has "made privacy its brand," running billboards and TV spots telling consumers "Your browsing is being watched. Safari helps stop it." It points to Apple's claim that Intelligent Tracking Prevention "hides your IP address from trackers" and is "on by default," and to Apple's 2025 announcement that Safari would become "even more private with advanced fingerprinting protection extending to all browsing by default."The plaintiff alleges that these promises are central to why consumers buy Apple devices and choose Safari — and that Apple charges a premium tied, in part, to that privacy reputation. The complaint also notes that, according to evidence disclosed in 2023 antitrust proceedings, Apple receives a reported share of the advertising revenue Google earns on Safari, which the plaintiff frames as a financial incentive cutting against Apple's privacy messaging.
What the Complaint Alleges About Fingerprinting
Fingerprinting, as described in the complaint, combines pieces of data a browser routinely sends to every website — device make, operating system, browser and version, language, time zone, screen resolution, and how the browser renders graphics — into an identifier unique enough to track a person from site to site without cookies. The filing distinguishes "passive" fingerprinting (collected from ordinary web requests) from "active" fingerprinting (where a site runs code to probe the browser), and it describes "canvas fingerprinting" as among the most precise methods.The plaintiff alleges that, even after Apple launched iOS 26 and macOS 26 in 2025 promising fingerprinting protection "by default," users can still be fingerprinted in Safari's default mode. The complaint claims Safari's default settings provide no protection against canvas fingerprinting unless a user digs into settings to enable it — something the filing says the average consumer is unlikely to know how to do.
The complaint also takes aim at the Safari "Privacy Report," alleging it lists certain trackers as "blocked" while those scripts — it specifically names Adobe's tracking script — still load and execute, including in Private Browsing. According to the filing, the Adobe script can transmit data such as the page URL, screen and browser dimensions, and persistent visitor and session identifiers, and can set identity cookies, even when the Privacy Report says it is blocked. The plaintiff alleges a reasonable consumer would read "blocked" as meaning the tracker was stopped entirely.
The Claims Apple Faces
The complaint brings six causes of action on behalf of the proposed class:- Breach of express contract
- Breach of implied contract
- Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
- Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
- Violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
- Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750
The plaintiff seeks class certification, damages (including the alleged price premium paid for Apple products), restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, an order requiring Apple to run a corrective advertising campaign, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is represented by Lynch Carpenter, LLP. Again, these are allegations; Apple has not responded, and a court has not ruled on any of them.
Who Would Be Covered?
As pleaded, the proposed class is "all persons residing in the United States who purchased an Apple device with the Safari web browser pre-installed," with the usual exclusions for Apple, its officers and affiliates, and the presiding judge. Because Safari ships pre-installed on every new iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch, the complaint estimates the class could include millions of people. The plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition or add subclasses as the case develops.What Happens Next?
At the complaint stage, the case is just beginning. Apple will have an opportunity to respond, typically by answering or moving to dismiss, and the court has not yet decided whether the case can proceed as a class action. There is no settlement, no claim form, and no money available now. If the case settles or a court certifies a class and approves relief down the road, that is when class members would receive notice and any instructions on how to participate. We will update this page as the docket moves.Read the Complaint
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Apple Safari class action allege?
The complaint alleges that Apple markets Safari as a private, anti-tracking browser but that Safari still allows third parties to track users through browser fingerprinting — including in default mode and Private Browsing — and that Safari's Privacy Report misleadingly lists trackers as blocked when they are not. These are unproven allegations; Apple has not been found liable.
Is there a settlement or money to claim?
No. This is a newly filed class action complaint. No class has been certified, Apple has not responded or been found liable, and there is no settlement and nothing to claim at this time.
Who would be covered by the proposed class?
As pleaded, the proposed class is all persons residing in the United States who purchased an Apple device with the Safari web browser pre-installed. The class definition could change as the case proceeds.
What is browser fingerprinting?
Fingerprinting combines data a browser routinely shares — such as device type, operating system, screen resolution, language, time zone, and how the browser renders graphics — into a unique identifier that can track a user across websites without cookies. The complaint alleges canvas fingerprinting is among the most precise methods.
What court is the case in?
Simpson v. Apple, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 5:26-cv-06307, on June 24, 2026.
Sources
- Class Action Complaint — Simpson v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:26-cv-06307 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2026)
- Apple — Privacy
- Apple — Safari
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
