An Ohio man named Ross Compton, 59, was charged with arson and insurance fraud, based on information police obtained from his pacemaker. While the police had a warrant to look at the data, concerns about medical device privacy are becoming more prevalent, and this Ohio case may just be the beginning.

Compton’s house burned down last year. According to his 911 call when he discovered that his house was on fire, he packed some of his items in suitcases, broke one of his house windows with a cane, threw the suitcases out of the window, and then put them in his car. While investigating the fire, the police obtained a search warrant for the data from Compton’s pacemaker. The pacemaker revealed Compton’s heart rate and cardiac rhythm on the evening of the fire. Experts who analyzed the data came to the conclusion that “…it is highly improbable Mr. Compton would have been able to collect, pack and remove the number of items from the house, exit his bedroom window and carry numerous large and heavy items to the front of his residence during the short period of time he has indicated due to his medical conditions.”

Compton has now been arrested and charged with arson and insurance fraud. The fire caused an estimated $400,000 in damage to the house, and his cat perished. Compton claims that the charges are “utterly insane” and that “this investigation has gone way out of control.”

Concerns over medical device privacy are starting to spring up with a higher frequency, as more of us rely on high-tech devices to help manage our health and wellness. Tools like pacemakers, wearable tech like Apple watches, and the devices that hospitals use–they’re all vulnerable to privacy intrusions. Some concerns are more dire than others, for example, the hacking of medical devices, could hold individuals or entire hospitals hostage.

Generally, the use of medical devices by the police is relatively new. But it’s started to gain traction. Fitbits and other fitness trackers–though perhaps not technically medical devices–have already been used as evidence in court. In a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, case, attorneys used a Fitbit to prove that a woman had lied about being sexually assaulted, as the data from the tracker showed she was up and walking during the time that she alleged she was assaulted. Compton’s pacemaker evidence, while certainly a step further, seems like a likely path. But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a fight over the use of this kind of data every step of the way. SC Magazine spoke to Electronic Frontier Foundation Criminal Defense Staff Attorney Stephanie Lacambra, who said:

Americans shouldn’t have to make a choice between health and privacy. We as a society value our rights to maintain privacy over personal and medical information, and compelling citizens to turn over protected health data to law enforcement erodes those rights.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Medical Device Privacy Concerns: Man’s Pacemaker Data Leads to Arson Arrest appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday, everyone. While you wait for that coffee to kick in, check out Law Street’s best stories of the week. ICYMI, here they are.

1. The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations

Everyone uses cosmetics, lotions, soaps, and other personal care items as a part of daily life, and we trust that those products are safe. But who actually determines whether or not a personal care product is safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of personal care products, however, the Agency continues to follow outdated guidelines that don’t reflect recent scientific breakthroughs. In an attempt to change this outdated system, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) to the Senate in April. The proposed bill is a bipartisan initiative and has the backing of many cosmetic and personal care product companies and the support of advocacy groups such as the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®). Look into the full issue here.

2. Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate”

 If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.” Read the full story here.

3.  Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.”

Three plaintiffs from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin are claiming that both Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge models, which come equipped with trademarked PurePulse technology, fail to accurately record wearer’s hear rates during workouts. In some cases the plaintiffs claimed the trackers displayed their heart rates as nearly half of their actual heart rates. By reporting drastically lower heart rates, the fitness accessory could pose a potential danger to users’ health.

The plaintiffs allege that contacting Fitbit about the defect didn’t deter the company from continuing to advertise the product, writing,

This failure did not keep Fitbit from heavily promoting the heart rate monitoring feature of the PurePulse Trackers and from profiting handsomely from it. In so doing, Fitbit defrauded the public and cheated its customers, including Plaintiffs.

In many ways Fitbit’s PurePulse technology, which promises to help “make every beat count,” has acted as a major selling point for consumers on the fence about shelling out extra bucks on upgraded models.

If these plaintiffs are right about the feature being potentially defective, it could have a seriously negative impact on the brand–which couldn’t have come at a worse time since the company just unveiled its newest smart fitness watch: Fitbit Blaze. A massive selloff and 20 percent drop in stock prices have shown that investors are taking the allegations seriously.

On the other hand, the preemptive selloffs may prove to be entirely unnecessary. With only three plaintiffs leading the charge on the class action lawsuit, these false advertising and fraud allegations are hardly indicative of a large scale problem with the company’s merchandise. But who knows, this could end up being the catalyst for more people disappointed with their heart rate trackers to come out of the woodwork.

Update 1/11/16:

A Fitbit spokesperson released a statement to Fortune saying that the company does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. The full statement can be read here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate” appeared first on Law Street.

What is the hottest “it” accessory? Coach wristlets? Plastic choker necklaces? Michael Kors watches? Nope—fitness trackers are the newest arm-candy craze. The wearable devices have slid into mainstream usage. Bottom line—they’re not just for health nuts anymore.

Around 2.7 million fitness trackers were shipped worldwide during the first quarter of 2014, about 50 percent of which were Fitbit devices. Fitbit is the brand name of sorts for wearable trackers in the same way the name Kleenex is synonymous with tissues.

Fitbit has been riding out its successful wave; this month the company even filed to offer public stock options. However, that wave is about to crash. One of Fitbit’s competitors, a company called Jawbone, is suing Fitbit for “plundering” confidential information. (Argh, matey, there be pirates afoot.)

How did Fitbit allegedly steal information? By employing Jawbone employees who were, ahem, not exactly loyal to their anatomically named former employer.

Mutiny on the cyber seas?

Jawbone’s lawsuit has two parts. Firstly, it wants financial compensation from Fitbit. Secondly, it wants the court’s assistance to prevent former employees from using any information they may have taken/gained while at Jawbone.

While Jawbone and Fitbit are fighting in open water, Apple is keeping watch on dry land…literally. There is a very real possibility that Fitbit’s profits will be significantly less than anticipated due to the fitness capabilities of the Apple Watch. Factor brand loyalty into the mix, and Apple becomes Jawbone and Fitbit’s most formidable competitor.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jawbone vs. Fitbit: Mutiny on the Cyber Seas appeared first on Law Street.

When you hear the word “FitBit,” you usually associate the physical activity monitor with fitness; however, after a recent case in Canada, FitBit might very well be associated with personal injury evidence used in Litigation.

In a personal injury case in Calgary, Canada, the law firm of Mcleod Law is using the plaintiff’s FitBit activity to support her personal injury claim. The plaintiff, who was a personal trainer, was injured in an accident four years ago. The attorneys representing her are seeking to demonstrate that her activity levels are lower than the baseline of a woman her age and profession, in order to prove damages. Among other things, Fitbit monitors physical activity by measuring steps taken by the individual wearing the device. The plaintiff’s attorneys hope to formulate a ‘quantitative representation of the claimant’s activity during their normal weekly routine.’

Logistically, the law firm is not using the raw FitBit data, but will be using analytics company Vivameterica to analyze such data. This company will analyze the plaintiff’s information and compare the data to other databases showing average activity of an individual with similar weight, age, gender, body mass index, etc.

This case is the first of its kind in that it could set a precedent for evidence of personal data collected through wearable devices in personal injury cases; however, there are many out there who are skeptical of this type of data being used in the courtroom.

Skeptics are concerned that this kind of data could lead to potential manipulation on the part of the plaintiffs, as well as false representations of activity. For example, if a plaintiff knows their FitBit data will be analyzed in court, they might be overly active so that there wearable device could pick up on such activity, in order to prove damages. In the alternative, individuals take off their Fitbit device throughout the day for various reasons. This could lead to a false read of an individual’s true physical activity.

Although this type of evidence does raise some issues, it could be an excellent tool for attorneys in proving damages, or in the alternative, for mitigating such damages. As technology advances, so too must our litigation system. It is very possible that we will be seeing data from wearable devices being used in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FitBit Monitor Data to Be Introduced as Evidence in Personal Injury Cases appeared first on Law Street.