Apple Wins AliveCor Heart Rate Tech Battle
In a major legal win for Apple, a federal appeals court has upheld a 2024 ruling that cleared the tech giant of antitrust allegations tied to changes in its Apple Watch heart rate monitoring system. The decision directly answers a question many consumers and developers have been asking: Did Apple unfairly block third-party heart health apps like AliveCor’s KardiaBand? According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is no—Apple’s software updates were legitimate product enhancements, not anti-competitive maneuvers.
The dispute centers on Apple’s 2018 shift from its older Heart Rate during Physical Observation (HRPO) algorithm to a newer, more advanced Heart Rate Neural Network (HRNN) in watchOS 5. AliveCor, maker of the FDA-cleared KardiaBand ECG accessory, claimed this change intentionally crippled its ability to detect irregular heart rhythms—effectively sidelining a key competitor just as Apple prepared to launch its own ECG feature. But courts have now twice rejected that narrative, reinforcing Apple’s right to evolve its platform without being forced to support legacy third-party integrations.
A Legal Clash Over Algorithms and Access
AliveCor’s core argument hinged on the idea that Apple weaponized its control over watchOS to monopolize the cardiac monitoring space. By discontinuing HRPO data access—a metric the KardiaBand relied on—the company alleged Apple engaged in exclusionary conduct designed to “eliminate opposition.” It even asked the court to compel Apple to restore the old algorithm, essentially demanding that Apple maintain outdated infrastructure for a rival’s benefit.
Apple countered forcefully, asserting that no company should be legally required to freeze its innovation to accommodate competitors. In court filings, Apple emphasized that forcing it to support obsolete APIs would turn judges into de facto product managers—an untenable precedent that could stifle future development across the entire tech industry. The Ninth Circuit agreed, stating plainly that “Apple’s refusal to share HRPO data was not anticompetitive” as a matter of law.
Why This Ruling Matters for Developers and Users
Beyond the courtroom drama, this decision carries significant implications for both app developers and everyday Apple Watch users. For developers, it reaffirms a foundational principle: platform owners retain broad discretion over how their ecosystems evolve. While interoperability is often encouraged, there’s no legal mandate for companies like Apple to preserve backward compatibility indefinitely—especially when newer technologies offer superior accuracy or efficiency.
For consumers, the ruling validates Apple’s ongoing push to integrate advanced health features directly into its hardware and software. The HRNN algorithm, for instance, powers Apple’s Irregular Rhythm Notification feature, which has helped millions detect potential signs of atrial fibrillation. By consolidating cardiac analysis within its own secure framework, Apple argues it can ensure reliability, privacy, and regulatory compliance—goals that may be harder to guarantee with fragmented third-party solutions.
Courts Reject “Duty to Deal” Argument
One of the most consequential aspects of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is its firm rejection of AliveCor’s “duty to deal” claim. The startup had contended that because Apple controls the dominant smartwatch platform, it must share essential health data with rivals. But the court shut down that theory, citing long-standing antitrust doctrine: U.S. law generally does not require firms—even dominant ones—to assist their competitors.
This aligns with Supreme Court precedent in cases like Verizon v. Trinko, which held that companies aren’t obligated to aid rivals simply because they succeed in the marketplace. The appeals panel warned that imposing such a duty would discourage investment in proprietary technology, ultimately harming innovation. “Antitrust laws protect competition—not competitors,” the judges wrote, delivering a clear message to future litigants.
Apple’s Health Ambitions Face Fewer Legal Roadblocks
With this appellate victory, Apple clears another hurdle in its aggressive expansion into digital health. The company has steadily transformed the Apple Watch from a fitness tracker into a medical-grade monitoring device, complete with ECG, blood oxygen sensing, and fall detection. Each new feature brings both user benefits and regulatory scrutiny—but now, fewer legal threats from jilted partners.
Notably, Apple already provides third-party developers access to the same Tachogram API used by its own irregular rhythm alerts. The court highlighted this as evidence that Apple isn’t hoarding critical data—it’s simply choosing not to support deprecated systems. That distinction proved fatal to AliveCor’s case, which rested on access to an older, less accurate method rather than current capabilities.
What’s Next for AliveCor?
While AliveCor hasn’t publicly commented on the latest ruling, the legal setback likely forces a strategic pivot. The company may need to rebuild its KardiaBand integration using Apple’s modern APIs or explore alternative platforms like Wear OS. Historically, AliveCor has adapted quickly to ecosystem shifts—its standalone KardiaMobile devices remain popular—but losing exclusive access to Apple’s early heart rate pipeline narrows its differentiation.
Still, the broader market for consumer cardiac monitoring continues to grow. With rising awareness of heart health and aging populations worldwide, demand for accessible ECG tools remains strong. AliveCor’s challenge now is innovation, not litigation.
A Win for Platform Sovereignty—But Questions Remain
This case underscores a growing tension in tech: How much control should platform holders wield over their ecosystems? Apple’s stance—that it alone decides how its products evolve—has prevailed in court, but critics warn it could lead to walled gardens that stifle competition. Regulators in the EU and U.S. are already probing similar dynamics under new digital markets laws.
Yet in this instance, the judiciary sided with engineering autonomy over mandated interoperability. As wearable health tech advances, expect more clashes between proprietary progress and open-access ideals. For now, though, Apple’s vision for integrated, end-to-end health monitoring has gained powerful legal backing.
Innovation vs. Interoperability
The AliveCor lawsuit wasn’t just about algorithms—it was a referendum on who gets to shape the future of personal health tech. Apple’s win signals that courts will defer to companies that improve their products, even if those changes disrupt third parties. That’s good news for rapid innovation but raises valid concerns about market fairness.
As smartwatches become increasingly vital to preventive healthcare, balancing these interests will only grow more complex. One thing is certain: Apple’s legal triumph ensures its engineers—not judges or rivals—will keep steering the Apple Watch’s health journey forward.
