Disclaimer
I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my human publications. Information presented is not intended to provide legal, lawful, financial or medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, nor prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only. I surround, protect, purify and make harmless the following information.
The evidence
Gillian Jamieson
Sep 05, 2026
A few weeks ago, the Italian Supreme Court made a historic and binding ruling against Apple, which has opened the door to mass compensation claims against all smartphone manufacturers worldwide and may well revolutionise the way people view their mobile phones.
A panel of five judges presided over by Luigi Alessandro Scarano ruled that Apple must inform the user of the potential health risks of the radio-frequency radiation (RFR) emitted by the phones, even if the science is uncertain and that if it does not do so, it will be liable to pay compensation to the user, whether or not physical injury has been caused. Apple must also provide information on how to use the phone safely as well as provide accessories to enable safer use.
Radio-frequency (or wireless) radiation (RFR) refers to the signals or radio waves emitted by all smart devices, WiFi and phone masts for purposes of communication and data upload or download. If your fridge is smart, it will emit RFR. The same goes for smart meters, baby monitors, Fitbits, Bluetooth, tablets and so on. These radio waves penetrate the body and research has shown credible evidence for a variety of negative health effects, including cancer.
This ground-breaking and final ruling (Order No. 24015/2026) against Apple Distribution International Ltd. and in favour of petitioner Monica Briganti, represented by Attorney Fabio Cardanobile, was made on the 24th July, 2026 by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation at the Palace of Justice in Rome, where it examined whether legal principles had been correctly applied in previous proceedings at the Court of Appeal in Bologna. These principles had not been correctly applied, the judgement was quashed and the case now returns to the Bologna court, which in 2024 had rejected Ms. Briganti’s appeal and which now must apply the law correctly as laid down definitively by the Supreme Court.
Backgrounder
Ms. Briganti, a mother of two, resident in Bologna, had bought an iPhone in 2016 and used it frequently, without any knowledge of its potential health risks or how to use it more safely. In 2018, she became aware of the correlation between prolonged exposure to wireless radiation and the long-term onset of cancer, after finding out, quite by chance, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had classified wireless radiation as possibly carcinogenic (Class 2B). She had not become ill, but had sought damages from Apple at the Bologna Court, since Apple had deprived her of her “fundamental right to self-determination and ability make an informed consumer choice,” by neither providing any warning of the potential health risks nor any instructions on how to use the phone safely.
In other words, the absence of health warnings and safety instructions in the packaging meant that she was uninformed about risk and therefore unable to take personal responsibility for her own exposure to risk. This was deemed to be a violation of her right to self-determination.
ALARA
The court also mentioned the ALARA (as low as is reasonably achievable) principle, which specifically focuses on minimizing radiation exposure. This translates into an obligation for the producer to provide information on how to use the phone in a way which would reduce exposure to radio frequencies and with it the level of risk.
Normal, everyday use is not necessarily safe use, as phones are usually held directly against the ear or carried in pockets against the body. The French environment agency ANSES found in its report of 22 October 2019, when it tested 300 phones held against the body, that the vast majority exceeded the safe limit, having SAR values above 2 W/kg with some exceeding 7W/kg.
Similarly, it is normal, but not necessarily safe, for people to use their phones in cars or trains, but they are unaware of the fact that because the metal of the cabin dampens the signal, the phone can emit up 3 times the normal radiation in an attempt to connect. Again, the same occurs if there is a weak signal.
It is now normal for children to use mobile phones and for adults to use them near children, but it is not generally known that children absorb much higher amounts of radiation than adults, twice the amount in the brain and ten times the amount in the bone marrow according to Gandhi et. al. (1996) and IARC data from 2013. Adults have not been made aware of this.
Historic significance
Finally, Attorney Cardanobile stressed the historic significance of this case well beyond Italy, saying,
“The Court recognises the right to compensation not on the basis of harm to health, but on the basis of the fact that the consumer was never put in a position to know of the potential risk and therefore to decide whether, and how, to manage it…The harm is the loss of the ability to choose. No Supreme Court, in any legal system, had ever said this in relation to mobile phones”.
RFR disclosure
The Bologna court will also decide on compensation and will order specific actions. Attorney Cardanobile told me, “The order expressly mentions the inclusion, supplementation or correction of the warnings; the adoption of instruments to draw the user’s attention periodically to prolonged exposure, including immediate and repeated digital warnings such as pop-up notifications or messages on start-up or during use; and the provision of accessories enabling safer use.”
It is expected that the re-examination of this case, on a date to be set by the end of October, will affect all mobile phone manufacturers and have an effect throughout Europe, if not globally. Transparency about potential health risks is now to be enforced and the choice of the consumer to take their own precautions enabled. Attorney Cardanobile explained the importance of a civilised legal system in “protecting a person’s ability to choose before the harm occurs, and not merely compensating afterwards.”
Full text and more insights at https://gillianjamieson.substack.com/p/landmark-ruling-by-italian-supreme
The con in consent
Sharing this court case invites individuals to look closer at their relationship with wireless devices including ones worn on the body. https://store.google.com/category/watches_trackers?hl=en-GB
Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
courtcase