Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 14;8(1):363.
doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01757-1.

Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers

Affiliations

Privacy in consumer wearable technologies: a living systematic analysis of data policies across leading manufacturers

Cailbhe Doherty et al. NPJ Digit Med. .

Abstract

The widespread adoption of consumer wearable devices has enabled continuous biometric data collection at an unprecedented scale, raising important questions about data privacy, security, and user rights. In this study, we systematically evaluated the privacy policies of 17 leading wearable technology manufacturers using a novel rubric comprising 24 criteria across seven dimensions: transparency, data collection purposes, data minimization, user control and rights, third-party data sharing, data security, and breach notification. High Risk ratings were most frequent for transparency reporting (76%) and vulnerability disclosure (65%), while Low Risk ratings were common for identity policy (94%) and data access (71%). Xiaomi, Wyze, and Huawei had the highest cumulative risk scores, whereas Google, Apple, and Polar ranked lowest. Our findings highlight inconsistencies in data governance across the industry and underscore the need for stronger, sector-specific privacy standards. This living review will track ongoing policy changes and promote accountability in this rapidly evolving domain.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. No author has received personal or financial support from any of the companies evaluated in this study. The research was conducted independently, and no wearable device manufacturer had any role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Statista. Wearables Statista Dossier. (2024).
    1. Dunn, J., Runge, R. & Snyder, M. Wearables and the medical revolution. Pers. Med.15, 429–448 (2018). - PubMed
    1. Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., Andrews, S. & Joinson, A. The rise of consumer health wearables: promises and barriers. PLoS Med.13, e1001953 (2016). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Doherty, C., Baldwin, A., Argent, R., Keogh, A. & Caulfield, B. Keeping pace with wearables: a living umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating the accuracy of commercial wearable technologies in health measurement. Sports Med.54, 2907-2926 (2024). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ash, G. I. et al. Establishing a global standard for wearable devices in sport and exercise medicine: perspectives from academic and industry stakeholders. Sports Med.51, 2237–2250 (2021). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources