Right from their launch, the selling point of these fitness trackers has always been the exactness of their heart rate monitors, but now a group of claimants is suggesting that this feature is in fact the gadgets’ Achilles heel.
Advertisement
The device had severely underestimated the frequency of her heart beats, measuring it at 82 instead of 160, which could’ve have had fatal consequences if the sports enthusiast had continued to overexert herself. One plaintiff claims that when she tried to get a refund on her Fitbit Charge HR, the company had refused.
The plaintiffs say they purchased the devices off the company’s advertised promise that the trackers accurately track heart rates.
Fitbit’s newest product, the Blaze smartwatch, also includes this technology. Algorithms then determine heart rate, which, according to the plaintiffs, tends to be considerably off the mark. “Fitbit stands behind our heart rate technology and strongly disagrees with the statements made in the complaint and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit”, the company added. The actual heart rate was recorded, subsequent to performing intense exercises, by her personal trainer.
“We do not believe this case has merit”, Heather Pierce, a spokeswoman for the company, told Bloomberg in an e-mail.
It’s been a tough week for Fitbit, which was founded in 2007 and became the world’s bestselling fitness tracker manufacturer with its various devices that count steps, monitor sleep and calculate calories burned.
“Fitbit is committed to making the best clip and wrist-based activity trackers on the market”. Our team has performed and continues to perform internal studies to validate our products’ performance. In 2014, consumers filed a complaint that the Fitbit Force wristband caused skin rashes, unlike the comfortable experience displayed in advertisements.
It has mentioned that the technology provides better overall heart rate tracking than cardio machines at the gym because of operating 24 hours and not just during the time of doing exercise. Fitbit’s statement ends with a vital addendum: Its trackers are intended for fitness and shouldn’t be expected to the take the place of a medical device.
Advertisement
Considering the poor response to its Blaze fitness band, intense competition and the new lawsuit will negatively impact the Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock.
