Jump to content

Surber v Oura Inc: Difference between revisions

From AI Law Wiki
← Older edit
AILawWikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
4,537 edits
Standardize news date labels and links; remove obsolete display titles
Standardize researched case information in a responsive sidebar; correct parties, docket and dated procedural status
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Surber v. Oura Inc.''' is a proposed consumer class action filed on August 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.<ref name="complaint">[https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/COMPLAINT-26-cv-08686-Surber-v.-Oura-Inc.-et-al.pdf ''Surber v. Oura Inc. et al.'', Class Action Complaint, No. 3:26-cv-08686 (N.D. Cal. filed August 20, 2026)]</ref>
<!-- AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->
<div class="ailaw-case-layout" style="display:flex;flex-direction:row-reverse;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:1.5em;align-items:flex-start;">
<div class="ailaw-case-sidebar" style="flex:0 1 22em;max-width:100%;min-width:0;">


== Case Information ==
{| class="wikitable ailaw-case-info" style="width:100%;margin:0;"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ style="font-size:125%;font-weight:bold;padding:0.5em;" | Case Information
|-
|-
! Field !! Details
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case name
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Surber v. Oura Inc<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d">[https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/COMPLAINT-26-cv-08686-Surber-v.-Oura-Inc.-et-al.pdf Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026]</ref>
|-
|-
| Case Name || ''Madison Surber v. Oura Inc., Oura Health Oy d/b/a Ouraring Inc., and subsidiaries''<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Court
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Court || U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Docket
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | 3:26-cv-08686<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Docket || 3:26-cv-08686<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Filed
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | August 20, 2026<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Filed || August 20, 2026<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Judge(s)
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Not identified in the sources reviewed.
|-
|-
| Plaintiff || Madison Surber, individually and on behalf of proposed classes<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Plaintiffs
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Madison Surber<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Defendants || Oura Inc.; Oura Health Oy d/b/a Ouraring Inc.; and subsidiaries<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Defendants
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Oura Inc.; Oura Health Oy d/b/a Ouraring Inc.; subsidiaries identified in the complaint<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Claims || Fraud; unjust enrichment; California Unfair Competition Law; California False Advertising Law; California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Case type
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Proposed civil consumer class action<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
|-
| Status || Pending<ref name="complaint" />
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Claims / issues
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Allegedly misleading AI-related health, accuracy and product representations<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|-
! scope="row" style="width:30%;text-align:left;vertical-align:top;" | Status
| style="vertical-align:top;overflow-wrap:anywhere;" | Complaint filed August 20, 2026. Later developments have not been verified.<ref name="case-record-470d88e3ffbcc21d" />
|}
|}
</div>
<div class="ailaw-case-article" style="flex:1 1 28em;min-width:0;overflow-wrap:anywhere;">
'''Surber v. Oura Inc.''' is a proposed consumer class action filed on August 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.<ref name="complaint">[https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/COMPLAINT-26-cv-08686-Surber-v.-Oura-Inc.-et-al.pdf ''Surber v. Oura Inc. et al.'', Class Action Complaint, No. 3:26-cv-08686 (N.D. Cal. filed August 20, 2026)]</ref>


== Background ==
== Background ==
Line 43: Line 62:
== References ==
== References ==
<references />
<references />
</div>
</div>
<!-- /AILawWiki case sidebar v1 -->


[[Category:Consumer Protection]]
[[Category:Consumer Protection]]

Latest revision as of 16:24, 7 September 2026

Case Information
Case name Surber v. Oura Inc[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California[1]
Docket 3:26-cv-08686[1]
Filed August 20, 2026[1]
Judge(s) Not identified in the sources reviewed.
Plaintiffs Madison Surber[1]
Defendants Oura Inc.; Oura Health Oy d/b/a Ouraring Inc.; subsidiaries identified in the complaint[1]
Case type Proposed civil consumer class action[1]
Claims / issues Allegedly misleading AI-related health, accuracy and product representations[1]
Status Complaint filed August 20, 2026. Later developments have not been verified.[1]

Surber v. Oura Inc. is a proposed consumer class action filed on August 20, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[2]

Background

Surber alleges that she bought an Oura Ring 4 after seeing marketing representations that the product could accurately track sleep stages.[2] The complaint alleges that Oura rings do not directly measure brain activity, eye movement, or muscle tone and instead use machine-learning algorithms to infer sleep stages from peripheral physiological signals.[2]

The complaint challenges claims that Oura products provide “79% agreement” with polysomnography and “95% Sleep Staging Accuracy” compared with a clinical sleep lab.[2] Oura told TechCrunch that independent research supports its accuracy claims, emphasized that its product is not a medical device or substitute for a clinical sleep study, and said it would defend the case.[3]

Claims

The complaint asserts nationwide fraud and unjust-enrichment claims and California claims under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Commercial Code, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.[2] It seeks class certification, an order stopping the challenged marketing, damages, restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and other relief.[2]

Procedural History

Surber filed the complaint and demanded a jury trial on August 20, 2026.[2]

Significance

The case presents a consumer-protection challenge to quantified accuracy claims for AI-generated health inferences produced by a wearable device.[2]

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Court filing / case record, reviewed September 7, 2026
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Surber v. Oura Inc. et al., Class Action Complaint, No. 3:26-cv-08686 (N.D. Cal. filed August 20, 2026)
  3. ↑ TechCrunch, “Oura faces lawsuit accusing it of misleading consumers about sleep-tracking accuracy,” August 21, 2026
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Surber_v_Oura_Inc&oldid=3679"