Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/11/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 11, 2016

According to the law firm press release, Fitbit manufactures and provides wearable fitness-tracking devices worldwide. The Company’s main products are wrist bands and clippable devices that purport to monitor a user’s fitness activity by tracking his/her health and fitness activities. Among the Company’s products are Fitbit Charge HR (“Charge HR”), a wireless heart rate and activity wristband, and Fitbit Surge (“Surge”), a fitness watch that consists of a GPS watch, heart rate tracker, activity tracker, and smartwatch. Fitbit Inc. sells its products primarily through retailers and distributors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fitbit’s heart rate monitoring technology was inaccurate and did not consistently deliver accurate heart rate readings during exercise; (ii) the inaccuracy of Fitbit’s heart rate monitoring technology posed serious health risks to users of Fitbit’s products; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Fitbit’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 10, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 1.

On October 26, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Scientific & Technical Instr.
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FIT
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00151
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 01/11/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/18/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/06/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00151
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 07/01/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/18/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/19/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date