U.S. District Judge, Vince Chhabria, of San Francisco declared on Friday, March 15, that Apple would officially be facing a suit against their AirTags, a device made for the tracking of people’s everyday belongings such as keys or wallets.

This decision was made after three victims made sufficient claims against Apple, stating, “when they (the victims) were stalked, the problems with the AirTags safety features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their injuries,” Chhabria wrote.

An Hoang, a 20-year-old communications science major, is one of many students at De Anza who own AirTags to track their possessions that may be easy to lose, such as his wallet, bike, or even his car.

“After I got the AirTags I felt safe for not losing all that I usually use,” Hoang said.

Hoang, like the victims of this case, did not foresee AirTags being used for malicious intent but understands that these cases are sensitive and should be handled with the victims best interests.

“I don’t see that as something easy to deal with because that’s the nature of a tracking device–it’s to track stuff,” Hoang said. “I’m not sure how they could deal with that, to reduce the personal tracking, or violating personal space.”

Apple claimed that AirTags were built with “industry-first” safety precautions and therefore cannot be responsible for how the product is used post purchasing. Along with the safety measures, they also include a feature in which people are warned if, and when, their location is being tracked by an AirTag.

Emily Amaro, 23, a criminal justice major, does not use any Apple products and does not feel the need to buy any sort of tracking devices.

“If I were to have an AirTag on my car, or whatever, I wouldn’t feel safer,” Amaro said. “It’s an overstep … (it) invades people’s privacy.”

Similarly, Alexis Rodriguez, a 19-year-old psychology major, also has no desire in ever purchasing an AirTag.

“I’ve heard about the stalker stuff,” Rodriguez said. “They’re putting other people’s lives in danger, and making them think that they’re being watched 24/7 (which) is disrupting their lives.”

There has been no decision ruled yet, as this is an ongoing lawsuit, but Chhabria is leaning towards finding Apple at fault. Updates can be tracked by its case number, 3:22-cv-07668.