The Oura Ring can’t track brain activity.

This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter that dives into the latest gadgets and innovations that promise to enhance your gaming experience.

Oura is facing a lawsuit. A recent class-action complaint claims that the smart ring manufacturer has misled customers by asserting it can accurately track various sleep stages. The lawsuit argues that the Oura Ring cannot achieve this because it doesn’t directly measure brain activity. Instead, it relies on AI models that exploit “desperate consumers who struggle with their sleep … by marketing faulty AI-based inferences as reliable science.” The suit suggests that the accuracy of the Oura Ring is akin to a “coin flip.”

Initially, I found the lawsuit amusing. It seems to underestimate the intelligence of Oura users, who likely understand that a ring can’t measure brain activity directly.

All wearable devices gather data and utilize algorithms or machine learning to infer various health metrics. As noninvasive tools, they primarily track motion. The advantage of these wearables is that they allow for continuous monitoring throughout the day. Responsible companies validate their metrics against clinical standards to create consumer-friendly screening tools. While they may not always be perfectly accurate, even broadly accurate data can significantly improve health outcomes.

I chuckled at the lawsuit, thinking no one would take it seriously. While wearables may not measure brain waves, they can still track other physiological changes during sleep, such as heart rate fluctuations and temperature variations. However, after checking online, I noticed the discussion surrounding the lawsuit was gaining traction. Many were sharing their thoughts on social media and forums, with some using it to argue that these devices are unreliable. Others viewed it as a reflection of our current obsession with optimization. A few enthusiasts echoed my initial reaction. Oura responded to the lawsuit by referencing validation studies published in peer-reviewed journals to support its sleep tracking claims, along with a supportive piece from a sleep researcher.

As someone well-versed in wearables, I find the lawsuit’s reasoning flawed, but it does highlight a significant issue: many still struggle to grasp the true purpose of wearable technology and how to use it effectively. The focus on accuracy can be misleading, as that’s not always the primary goal of a wearable.

Wearables vary in their sleep tracking accuracy. Generally, independent reviews indicate they are quite effective at detecting when you fall asleep and wake up. However, determining sleep stages can be tricky, as each company employs proprietary algorithms to estimate whether you’re in REM, deep, or light sleep based on motion, temperature, and heart rate data. Errors can arise from various factors, including sleep position and battery life.

Wearables are designed to help you track long-term trends. If you’re experiencing poor sleep, you might already have an idea of why—perhaps you had too much caffeine before bed or your pet woke you up early. However, if you’re unsure, a consumer sleep tracker can provide an overview of your sleep patterns, helping you reflect on lifestyle choices that may be affecting your rest. It’s a tool to facilitate discussions with healthcare professionals, but it will never replace clinical sleep studies.

Since wearables estimate health metrics indirectly, there’s always a chance that results may be inconsistent. The key is that the device should be reliable enough to signal when something is genuinely amiss—a sort of “check engine light.” Occasionally, you might encounter false alarms, but the important thing is that you’re more aware of your health.

There’s nuance to consider. If I’m being generous, this lawsuit could be seen as a good-faith effort to push health tech companies to be more precise in their marketing. Some companies do engage in misleading practices, and I agree that health tech firms can sometimes present features in a way that could lead to misunderstandings. However, I don’t believe this lawsuit falls into that category. Oura, in particular, is quite transparent about its scientific backing.

One could argue that more companies should provide easily accessible educational content, especially given the increasingly blurred lines between wellness and medical technology. It would be beneficial for wearable companies to clarify that the closer a feature is to medical diagnostics, the more accuracy matters. For general trend monitoring, consistency is more important than pinpoint accuracy. This is why certain features require FDA approval while others do not. For instance, the Pixel Watch 5’s new emergency breathing feature demands high accuracy since it can alert emergency services if it detects a potential breathing issue. In contrast, sleep stage tracking is a wellness feature aimed at helping you monitor long-term trends and understand how your lifestyle impacts your sleep quality. If it’s not perfectly accurate, the stakes are lower.

However, it’s not accurate to say that wearable companies don’t provide ample educational information about how to interpret their metrics. Many include warnings and disclosures in their apps, clarifying that certain features are for wellness purposes and not for diagnosis. In Oura’s case, a curious consumer could easily find information online stating, “The Oura Ring is reasonably accurate for tracking general sleep duration and identifying when you fall asleep or wake up, but its breakdown of specific sleep stages is only an estimate.” This is often followed by links to studies comparing the accuracy of various trackers and articles from tech experts discussing the same topics.

So, why does a class-action lawsuit like this exist? Perhaps it’s a reflection of a failure on the part of tech journalists to provide adequate context or analysis. Maybe we’re not presenting information in the most accessible manner. I hesitate to place blame on consumers, as this is a complex area, but I believe most people are more discerning than they’re often credited for. Still, there’s only so much educational content that can be provided if users choose not to engage with it. Ultimately, it’s up to companies to ensure consumers understand their products’ limitations. While the lawsuit emphasizes accuracy, its strongest argument is that broad marketing claims can lead to misunderstandings about how a product should be used.

In any case, the takeaway from this lawsuit shouldn’t be that Oura—or wearables in general—are worthless. If that were the case, major tech companies wouldn’t continue to release new smartwatches each year, showcasing real-life stories of how they improve lives. Researchers wouldn’t have turned to wearables for studying illness detection during the pandemic. To me, this lawsuit serves as its own “check engine light.” If people genuinely feel misled and don’t understand how these features function, it’s an opportunity to recalibrate the conversation.