How Are Apple AirTags Used For Stalking?

AirTags were designed for keeping track of lost items, but the same location-sharing system can be misused for stalking.

An AirTag sends out a Bluetooth signal that nearby Apple devices can detect and relay through the Find My app to the person who registered the tracker.

This means iPhone users and other people carrying Apple devices can unknowingly help update an AirTag’s location even when they have no connection to the person monitoring it.

The presence of an unfamiliar AirTag may not be immediately obvious, especially when the device is hidden on a vehicle, inside a bag, or among other personal belongings.

Because the tracker can continue reporting location through nearby devices, unwanted tracking can happen without the person responsible remaining physically close to the target.

This has raised particular concerns in cases involving former partners, domestic violence, and stalking, where location information may be used without the target’s knowledge or consent.

Apple has introduced alerts and other security measures intended to warn users when an unfamiliar AirTag appears to be moving with them.

Even with those protections, lawsuits and criminal cases involving the company’s devices show how AirTags can be used to monitor another person’s movements before the tracker is discovered and disabled.

Why AirTags Can Be Effective for Unwanted Tracking

AirTags can be effective for unwanted tracking because they are small, inexpensive, easy to conceal, and designed to communicate with Apple’s large Find My network.

An AirTag can communicate over Bluetooth from roughly 50 feet away, allowing nearby Apple devices to detect it and relay updated location information.

The registered owner does not need to remain near the person being tracked because other devices can continue reporting the AirTag’s location as it moves.

These characteristics can make an AirTag difficult to notice while still providing useful location information to someone who placed it without consent.

Several features contribute to the risk of AirTags being misused for unwanted tracking:

• Small size: AirTags can be concealed in vehicles, bags, clothing, or other personal belongings.
• Bluetooth connectivity: AirTags can communicate with nearby devices from about 50 feet away under typical conditions.
• Find My network access: Nearby Apple devices can anonymously relay an AirTag’s location to its registered owner.
• Remote tracking: The person who placed the AirTag does not need to physically follow the target to receive location updates.
• Long battery life: AirTags can operate for extended periods before the battery needs to be replaced.
• Low visibility: A concealed AirTag may continue moving with a person for some time before it is discovered or disabled.

AirTags can be used to track people by placing the device on or inside something that regularly travels with the intended target.

Reported incidents and lawsuits have involved AirTags hidden on vehicles, inside bags, and among other personal belongings.

Once concealed, the device can continue sending location updates through nearby Apple devices connected to the Find My network.

The person responsible may then monitor where the AirTag moves without remaining physically near the target.

AirTags Hidden on Cars

Cars are one of the most commonly documented places where AirTags have been concealed for unwanted tracking.

A person with physical access to a vehicle may be able to hide a tracker in a wheel well, beneath the vehicle, or in another location where it is difficult to notice during normal use.

Once the vehicle begins moving, nearby devices connected to Apple’s Find My network can continue relaying the AirTag’s location, potentially revealing where the driver lives, works, shops, or spends time.

Several criminal cases illustrate how this type of tracking can happen.

In one 2024 Iowa case, a woman received an alert on her iPhone while driving and contacted police, who found an AirTag duct-taped inside the rear wheel well of her car.

The device was registered to her former husband, who later pleaded guilty to unauthorized placement of a tracking device.

In a separate Iowa stalking case decided in January 2026, a woman found an AirTag concealed beneath her vehicle in a magnetic holder attached to a support beam under the trunk.

Apple records later confirmed that the AirTag was registered to the man accused of stalking her, and his conviction for stalking using a technological device was upheld on appeal.

Similar conduct has been alleged in the civil litigation against Apple.

In the original Hughes v. Apple complaint, plaintiff Lauren Hughes alleged that she discovered an AirTag in the rear passenger-side wheel well of her vehicle after receiving an unwanted-tracking notification.

The complaint alleges that the device had been colored with a marker and placed inside a plastic bag, making it less conspicuous.

These incidents show how tracking a vehicle can effectively provide information about a person’s movements without requiring the individual responsible to physically follow the vehicle.

AirTags Hidden in Bags and Personal Belongings

AirTags can also be concealed inside bags and personal belongings that routinely travel with the person being tracked.

Because the device is small, it may be hidden in a lining, pocket, toy, backpack, or another item without being immediately visible.

The AirTag litigation against Apple includes several allegations showing how personal belongings have been used to carry hidden trackers from place to place.

One plaintiff in the litigation alleged that she discovered an AirTag in her child’s backpack after her former spouse repeatedly questioned where she and the child had been, and that another AirTag later appeared in the same backpack after she attempted to disable the first device.

Another plaintiff alleged that an ex-boyfriend secretly placed an AirTag inside the lining of her purse.

In a separate account, a woman alleged that her husband cut into the inner lining of her purse, inserted an AirTag, and glued the lining back together before she eventually discovered the device.

The allegations also show that an AirTag does not have to be hidden in a conventional bag.

One plaintiff alleged that an AirTag was placed inside a stuffed teddy bear returned by a former partner, while another plaintiff alleged that AirTags were discovered inside the lining of his son’s bag and in his daughter’s diaper bag.

These examples illustrate how everyday belongings can potentially be used to carry a concealed AirTag across multiple locations without the person being tracked realizing the device is present.

Tracking Someone Through a Child or Another Person

An AirTag does not necessarily have to be placed directly on the person a stalker intends to monitor.

Because the device reports the location of whatever object travels with it, placing an AirTag among a child’s belongings or another person’s property can indirectly reveal where a parent, partner, or other target is located.

Allegations in the federal AirTag litigation describe several incidents in which children or third parties became part of the tracking method, sometimes without realizing that an AirTag was present.

This can be especially concerning in situations involving shared custody, separation, or domestic violence, where children and their belongings regularly move between households.

Examples alleged in the litigation include:

• A child’s backpack: One plaintiff alleged that she discovered an AirTag in her child’s backpack after her former spouse repeatedly questioned her about where she and the child had been. After she attempted to disable the device, another AirTag allegedly appeared in the backpack.
• A child’s pencil bag: Another plaintiff received an AirTag alert after picking up her son and found a second tracker inside his pencil bag, according to a federal court order discussing her allegations.
• Multiple children’s belongings: Another plaintiff alleged that he found an AirTag secured inside the lining of his son’s bag and another in his daughter’s diaper bag.
• Another person’s property: One plaintiff alleged that two AirTags were hidden among a friend’s belongings that had been placed in her vehicle, resulting in her receiving tracking alerts even though the devices were allegedly intended to monitor the friend.

These allegations illustrate how unwanted AirTag tracking can extend beyond a device hidden directly on a victim, allowing someone to potentially infer a target’s location through the people and belongings that regularly travel with them.

Apple and Google have built features into iPhone and Android devices that can detect an unknown AirTag or compatible Bluetooth tracker that appears to be moving with someone over time.

On an iPhone, an unfamiliar AirTag may trigger an “AirTag Found Moving With You” alert on the screen, while an AirTag separated from its owner may also emit a sound when moved.

These warnings can help someone recognize that a tracker may be hidden in a vehicle, backpack, luggage, or another item traveling with them.

After receiving an alert, a person may be able to use their phone to locate and identify the AirTag.

Depending on the device and operating system, available options may include:

• Viewing where the tracker was detected: The Find My app can display locations where an unknown AirTag was detected traveling with an iPhone user.
• Playing a sound: A user can tap the alert and select Play Sound to make the AirTag emit an audible signal.
• Using Precision Finding: Supported iPhones can display the approximate distance and direction to a nearby AirTag.
• Scanning on Android: Devices running Android 6.0 or later can provide unknown tracker alerts and allow users to manually scan for compatible trackers.
• Checking identifying information: Holding an NFC-capable phone near the white side of an AirTag can display its serial number and the last four digits of the phone number associated with the registered account.

An alert does not automatically mean stalking is occurring, since borrowed belongings or property belonging to another person can sometimes trigger the same warning.

Apple recommends checking vehicles, clothing, bags, luggage, and other belongings that traveled along the same route when an unfamiliar AirTag cannot immediately be found.

Finding the physical tracker is important because turning off Bluetooth, Location Services, or Find My on the person’s own phone does not necessarily stop the AirTag from reporting its location through other nearby devices.

Apple states that the AirTag itself must be disabled to stop location sharing, and a screenshot of the device information may help preserve the serial number and account details before that happens.

Why AirTag Warnings May Not Stop Stalking Immediately

AirTag safety alerts can warn someone about unwanted tracking, but they are not designed to detect a hidden device the moment it is placed.

Apple explains that an alert generally appears after an unfamiliar AirTag has been detected moving with a person over time, meaning some tracking may occur before the warning appears.

A 2025 study of AirTag stalking protections found that all 25 iPhone participants eventually received warnings, but alerts took between one and 24 hours to arrive, and 23 participants received their first notification only after reaching home.

The same research found that only 14 of 25 Android participants received an alert during the two-day testing period, although the study evaluated earlier hardware and software rather than Apple’s current second-generation AirTag.

Researchers also found that some users overlooked or misunderstood the warning and had difficulty locating the concealed tracker after receiving it.

These delays and practical limitations can allow an AirTag to reveal sensitive locations or movement patterns before the person being tracked finds and disables the device.

Finding a rogue AirTag can indicate unwanted tracking, but the immediate priority should be personal safety rather than preserving the device as evidence.

It is recommended to document any identifying information associated with the AirTag and contacting law enforcement if someone believes their safety is at risk.

Depending on the circumstances, notifying a trusted person and moving to a safe location may also be appropriate before attempting to locate or disable the tracker.

Once it is safe to do so, the following steps can help document and stop the unwanted tracking:

1. Move to a safe location: If there is an immediate safety concern, go to a public or secure location and contact emergency services when necessary.
2. Document the alert: Take screenshots of any unwanted-tracking notifications, maps, or other information displayed on the phone.
3. Locate the AirTag: Use Play Sound or Precision Finding, when available, to help identify where the device is hidden.
4. Record identifying information: Hold an NFC-capable phone near the AirTag to view its serial number and available account information, and save a screenshot or photograph.
5. Photograph where it was found: Document the AirTag in place before removing it if doing so is safe.
6. Contact law enforcement: Report suspected stalking or unlawful tracking and provide the device information, screenshots, and other documentation available.
7. Disable the AirTag: Follow Apple’s instructions for disabling an AirTag so it can no longer report its location through the Find My network.

AirTag tracking can become evidence in a stalking investigation or criminal case when the device, account information, location history, and surrounding circumstances connect the tracker to a particular person.

Apple states that law enforcement can request available information associated with an AirTag, and the company advises people who find an unknown tracker to preserve its serial number and other identifying information.

Evidence involving an AirTag may be considered alongside communications, threats, surveillance footage, witness statements, or a documented history of unwanted contact.

Information that may be relevant in an AirTag stalking investigation includes:

• The physical AirTag: Where and how the device was concealed can help establish the circumstances surrounding the tracking.
• The AirTag serial number: Apple advises users to record the serial number because law enforcement may need it when requesting information associated with the device.
• Registration information: Apple account records may help connect an AirTag to the person who registered it.
• Tracking notifications: Screenshots of unwanted-tracking alerts and maps showing where an AirTag was detected can document when the device began moving with someone.
• Photographs and video: Images showing where the AirTag was discovered may help preserve the condition and placement of the tracker.
• Related communications: Text messages, emails, threats, or statements showing knowledge of a person’s location may provide additional context for the tracking activity.

AirTag evidence has already played a role in criminal stalking and unlawful-tracking cases.

In State v. Carmichael, investigators confirmed through Apple records that an AirTag found beneath a woman’s vehicle was registered to the defendant, and the Iowa Court of Appeals upheld his conviction for stalking using a technological device in January 2026.

In another case, State v. Gentile, police recovered an AirTag duct-taped inside a woman’s rear wheel well and determined that it was registered to her former husband, who later pleaded guilty to unauthorized placement of a tracking device.

Apple AirTag stalking lawsuits allege that design features intended to help consumers locate lost property have also allowed stalkers and abusive partners to secretly monitor other people’s movements.

The litigation began in December 2022, when stalking victims filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Apple alleging that the company knew AirTags could foreseeably be misused for unwanted tracking.

Plaintiffs have since described AirTags concealed in vehicles, purses, children’s belongings, and other property that regularly travels with the person being monitored.

They allege that this tracking can expose homes, workplaces, travel patterns, and other locations while contributing to fear, anxiety, severe psychological distress, and concerns about physical safety.

In March 2024, a federal judge partially denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, allowing negligence and strict product-liability claims brought by three California plaintiffs to proceed while dismissing other claims.

The broader Apple AirTag stalking litigation has since expanded beyond the original proposed class action into individual lawsuits filed by people who say AirTags were used to track them without their consent.

Common allegations raised in AirTag stalking lawsuits include:

• Foreseeable misuse: Plaintiffs allege Apple knew or should have known that the small size, affordability, and location-tracking ability of AirTags could make them useful to stalkers and abusers.
• Delayed tracking alerts: Lawsuits allege that unwanted-tracking notifications may not appear until an AirTag has already traveled with a victim for hours.
• Difficulty locating concealed AirTags: Plaintiffs claim that receiving an alert does not necessarily make a hidden tracker easy to find or disable.
• Inadequate audible warnings: Some lawsuits question whether AirTag sound alerts provide sufficient protection when a device is deeply concealed or difficult to hear.
• Insufficient protections for stalking victims: Plaintiffs allege that Apple released and continued selling AirTags without safeguards adequate to address predictable misuse in stalking and domestic violence situations.
• Psychological and physical harm: Individual plaintiffs report emotional distress, fear for their safety, relocation expenses, physical confrontations, and other alleged injuries following AirTag-enabled tracking.

The federal litigation entered a new phase on October 2, 2026, when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3199 and transferred 17 AirTag actions pending in 13 federal districts to the Northern District of California.

The Panel also identified 12 additional potentially related actions and assigned the coordinated proceedings to U.S. District Judge Noël Wise.

Consolidation into an MDL does not create a class action or determine that Apple is liable; it allows related federal lawsuits to share coordinated pretrial proceedings involving overlapping factual and legal issues.

Plaintiffs will still need to establish the facts of their individual cases and show that the alleged AirTag defects caused or contributed to their injuries.

AirTag stalking incidents can involve serious privacy violations, emotional distress, and fear for personal safety, particularly when the tracker is used by a former partner or someone with access to a victim’s vehicle or belongings.

Federal lawsuits now allege that Apple did not adequately address the foreseeable risk that AirTags could be misused for stalking and unwanted tracking.

TorHoerman Law is investigating AirTag stalking lawsuits and reviewing claims from people who believe they were tracked without their knowledge or consent.

Evidence that may be relevant includes the physical AirTag, tracking notifications, serial numbers, account information obtained through legal process, photographs, communications, and other records showing how the device was used.

People who believe they may have a claim can contact our law firm for a free consultation to discuss their circumstances and learn more about the current litigation.

Our law firm handles eligible cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees and attorney fees are collected only if compensation is recovered.