Apple faces a proposed class action over Safari privacy claims, with plaintiffs saying the browser can still allow fingerprinting even when users expect stronger tracking protection.
Good to know
A new proposed class action says Apple gave Safari users a stronger sense of privacy than the browser actually delivered.
The complaint, filed against Apple in California, argues that Safari still shares enough browser and device data for third parties to identify users through fingerprinting. That tracking method does not need cookies. Instead, it can combine details such as browser version, device type, time zone, language settings, display settings, fonts, and other technical signals into a user profile.
Plaintiff Sarah Simpson says she bought two iPhones in 2025 and used Safari because Apple marketed the browser as private. The lawsuit says Apple built privacy into its brand and promoted Safari features such as Intelligent Tracking Prevention, Private Browsing, advanced fingerprinting protection, and Privacy Report.
The complaint argues those promises did not match how Safari worked in practice.
According to the filing:
“Safari transmits pieces of information about users’ web browsers and devices to every website they visit as they browse the internet. This information is then related through what is called ‘fingerprinting’…
Safari’s default settings provide no defenses against canvas fingerprinting, which allows third parties to gather information about how invisible or subtle content on the canvas element of a browser is drawn, revealing characteristics specific to a user’s hardware and software.”
Canvas fingerprinting sits at the center of the case. The complaint says websites can use tiny or hidden browser canvas activity to read how a device renders content. Those output differences can help identify a user across websites.
Plaintiffs also take aim at Safari Private Browsing. The lawsuit says tracking scripts can still load and run in Private Browsing mode. It also says Privacy Report can give users the impression that trackers have been blocked, even when fingerprinting scripts still operate.
The case does not claim that Safari alone creates fingerprinting. Browser fingerprinting can affect many browsers because websites receive technical data when pages load. The issue here is Apple marketing. Plaintiffs say Apple sold Safari as a browser that helps stop third parties from profiling or following users across the web.
The complaint includes claims for breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California Unfair Competition Law, violation of California False Advertising Law, and violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The lawsuit seeks class action status for Safari users who allegedly relied on Apple privacy promises. Plaintiffs argue that users paid a premium for Apple devices because they believed Safari would protect their browsing data from third party tracking.
Apple has not publicly answered the allegations. No court ruling has decided whether the claims are valid.
The case lands at a time when online privacy, ad tracking, browser fingerprinting, and device level data collection have become much more visible to everyday users. For Apple, the legal risk comes from the gap plaintiffs allege between Safari privacy marketing and Safari tracking protection.
The proposed class action claims Apple overstated Safari privacy protections and allowed third parties to track users through browser fingerprinting.
Browser fingerprinting combines technical signals from a device and browser to create a profile that can follow a user across websites without relying on cookies.
Canvas fingerprinting uses how a browser draws hidden or subtle canvas content to identify hardware and software differences tied to a user device.
Yes. Plaintiffs allege tracking scripts can still load and run in Safari Private Browsing mode.
Apple has not issued a public response to the proposed class action claims.