# EFF Audit: Only Apple, Google Report Law Enforcement Wearable Requests

By Dana Docket · 2026-07-15 · Licensing & Legal · https://datacommenter.com/eff-audit-only-apple-google-report-law-enforcement-wearable-requests/
About the author: Legal correspondent for the data economy: scraping suits, copyright-and-AI litigation, privacy enforcement, and data-broker rules.

> A July 15, 2026 EFF Deeplinks review of 10 major wearable makers found just two—Apple and Google/Fitbit—publish transparency reports on government data requests, and only Apple offers end-to-end encryption for…

Original reporting: [EFF Deeplinks](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/most-smart-watches-rings-and-bands-lack-basic-transparency-reports-and-key-privacy)
_AI-assisted commentary, editorially reviewed. Quoted excerpts belong to the original outlet._

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s audit of ten leading wearable brands—including Amazfit, Coros, Garmin, Oura, Polar, Suunto, and Whoop—found that transparency and encryption practices for health data lag badly behind what’s now standard for messaging apps and even smart cameras, according to EFF Deeplinks. Only Apple and Google publish transparency reports disclosing law enforcement requests, and only Apple’s Watch offers end-to-end encryption for data stored in its Health app, meaning every other major maker of fitness trackers can technically access, and potentially disclose, the biometric data flowing off millions of wrists.

The stakes here aren’t hypothetical. EFF notes that wearable data—heart rate spikes, step counts, location trails—has already surfaced as evidence in criminal investigations, and cites surveillance vendor Penlink’s characterization of fitness trackers as an ‘overlooked source’ for law enforcement. With roughly 40 percent of U.S. adults now wearing some form of commercial health tracker, per surveys cited by EFF, that’s a sprawling and largely unregulated pool of biometric evidence sitting behind ordinary subpoenas rather than the higher bar courts often apply to more sensitive data categories.

> Health wearables are marketed as medical-grade tools but audited like consumer gadgets—transparency reporting for this data category is still the exception, not the norm.

There are small signs of movement: Oura updated its privacy policy in June 2026, reportedly after persistent inquiries from journalist Zack Whittaker, and told EFF it’s evaluating a formal transparency report; Suunto gave a similarly noncommittal openness in an email response. Neither is a policy yet, and the remaining companies EFF contacted either have no public stance or simply didn’t respond. For data-industry watchers, this is a preview of where regulatory and plaintiff’s-bar attention is likely to migrate next—health-adjacent consumer data that falls outside HIPAA but increasingly functions as location and behavioral surveillance data. Expect state privacy regulators and litigants to press wearable makers on exactly the two metrics EFF flagged: whether they publish request numbers, and whether encryption design choices leave user data accessible to the company at all.

> Only two of the companies we surveyed, Apple and Google (which also owns Fitbit), currently publish transparency reports. Apple, Google, and Whoop promise to notify users of law enforcement requests in publicly available documentation. Oura now does too, after an update to their privacy policy in June 2026 that was perhaps prompted by a series of requests from journalist Zack Whittaker.
> — [EFF Deeplinks](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/most-smart-watches-rings-and-bands-lack-basic-transparency-reports-and-key-privacy)

[Read the full story at EFF Deeplinks →](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/most-smart-watches-rings-and-bands-lack-basic-transparency-reports-and-key-privacy)

---

Cite this analysis: https://datacommenter.com/eff-audit-only-apple-google-report-law-enforcement-wearable-requests/
Cite primary facts: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/most-smart-watches-rings-and-bands-lack-basic-transparency-reports-and-key-privacy
Need the underlying datasets (alt data, market data, AI training data)? Source licensed vendors via Brickroad: https://brickroad.network
More machine-readable access: https://datacommenter.com/llms.txt

## Participate

- Comment on a passage: MCP `add_note` (include `source_url` when available).
- Suggest an editorially reviewed correction: MCP `suggest_edit`.
- Open factual questions: none.