By Eileen O’Connor
Director and co-founder, Radiation Research Trust
Published: 3 August 2026
Italian Supreme Court Sends Powerful Message on Consumer Rights and Information About Mobile Phone Radiation Concerns
On 24 July 2026, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (Order No. 24015/2026) delivered an important ruling that could have significant implications for consumer protection and manufacturers’ information obligations.
The Court granted the appeal brought by a woman who challenged Apple over the lack of information provided about radiofrequency exposure from mobile phone use, setting aside the previous judgment and remitting the case for further consideration.
The decision highlights an important principle for technology companies, regulators, manufacturers, the media, and governments: scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason to withhold relevant information from the public.
This ruling is not simply about Apple. It establishes a wider principle of transparency, consumer rights, and public access to information about technologies used every day, particularly where reported health concerns have been raised.
The right to know is fundamental to the right to choose.
The Italian case involved a woman who purchased an Apple smartphone in 2016 and used it extensively, including more than one hour per day of calls and several hours per day of data use.
She argued that she had not been provided with adequate information about exposure reduction measures.
The information she said was missing included practical advice such as:
• Limiting prolonged use where appropriate;
• Avoiding unnecessary close body contact with active devices;
• Not keeping active mobile phones close to the body for extended periods;
• Using speaker mode or earphones when appropriate.
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had not properly considered whether consumers’ ability to make informed choices had been compromised by inadequate information.
The fundamental issue before the Court was clear: consumers cannot make informed choices if they are denied access to relevant scientific information about products they use every day.
The Supreme Court’s answer: preventive consumer protection measures must be considered
According to La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, the defence attorney’s question was whether, given potential health risks raised by the World Health Organization, even where those risks had not yet been scientifically proven, mobile phone manufacturers were required to inform consumers about precautions that could reduce exposure.
The Supreme Court’s answer was reported as: “Yes.”
The Court recognised that scientific uncertainty does not, by itself, remove the relevance of consumer protection obligations or prevent consideration of preventive measures where potential risks to consumers have been raised.
A significant development in consumer protection
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the individual case. The decision could influence the future relationship between technology companies and consumers by reinforcing the importance of transparency and manufacturers’ responsibility to provide information necessary for consumers to make informed choices.
Failure to provide such information may give rise to legal consequences where a court finds that the consumer’s ability to make an informed choice has been affected by inadequate information. This case therefore raises a wider issue:
Can consumers truly choose if they are not given the information needed to understand the technology they use?
Scientific debate does not justify withholding information
For many years, the public has repeatedly heard the message that there is “no evidence” that mobile phones pose health risks. That assertion does not reflect the full scope of the published scientific record, which includes an extensive body of peer-reviewed research reporting biological effects and health concerns associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure.
More than 260 scientists from 45 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. The Appeal calls for stronger protection from EMF exposure, stating that current exposure guidelines do not adequately protect humans or other species, and urging governments and international health agencies to adopt more protective policies in light of the published scientific evidence.
Previous legal proceedings and the importance of transparency
The Italian Supreme Court ruling does not stand alone. Previous legal proceedings have examined evidence relating to prolonged occupational mobile phone use and reported associations between radiofrequency exposure and head tumours.
In the Italian case of Romeo v. INAIL, the Court of Appeal of Turin upheld a judgment recognising a connection between a worker’s occupational mobile phone use and an acoustic neuroma. The court considered epidemiological research, animal studies, exposure duration, intensity, and reported health effects.
These proceedings show that concerns surrounding prolonged mobile phone exposure have been examined through the courts using scientific evidence and expert testimony. The courts have also considered questions of transparency and potential conflicts of interest in scientific assessment processes, including concerns regarding links between some researchers and organisations involved in developing exposure guidelines.
The legal record shows that scientific findings, expert testimony, and questions surrounding exposure have been examined in detail.
The bigger question: what about exposure people cannot choose to avoid?
While the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling focused on consumer information and informed choice, the Radiation Research Trust believes it also raises a much larger question about technology, consent, and public exposure.
If people have the right to know about the reported adverse health effects of wireless technology, and the right to make informed choices about their own use, what happens when exposure comes from sources they cannot individually control?
Mobile phones are only one source of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure. Billions of people are exposed every day through wireless infrastructure and devices beyond their direct control, including mobile phone masts, WiFi networks in schools, hospitals, workplaces, public buildings, and shared residential areas.
Unlike a personal device selected by an individual, these sources cannot simply be switched off or avoided.
Evidence from two of the world’s largest animal studies of radiofrequency (RF) exposure has further informed scientific understanding of reported health effects.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) study examined near-field RF exposures comparable to those experienced when using a mobile phone close to the body and reported evidence of certain cancer-related effects in exposed animals. Separately, the Ramazzini Institute study examined far-field RF exposures designed to reflect environmental exposure from sources such as mobile phone base stations and likewise reported evidence of similar cancer-related effects in exposed animals.
Further questions have been raised regarding long-term environmental exposure from wireless infrastructure. A 2022 review by Balmori examined research relating to exposure from mobile phone base stations and discussed reported biological and health effects associated with living near these sources, highlighting concerns regarding chronic, low-level radiofrequency exposure in the environment.
In his conclusion, Balmori argued that scientists researching the biological effects of electromagnetic fields had raised concerns through published research and scientific appeals, while the wider public had not always been adequately informed about these scientific debates. He warned that failure to communicate relevant scientific information, including areas of scientific uncertainty, could contribute to a future crisis.
The central issue is therefore not only individual choice, but how society addresses widespread exposures that people cannot individually control. This raises a fundamental question: how can people make informed choices about exposure they cannot avoid?
Parents, workers, patients, and communities deserve access to clear information about wireless technologies in the places where they live, learn, work, and receive care.
A truly informed society requires more than information about personal devices. It requires consideration of the wider environments in which people are exposed.
The precautionary principle must not be ignored
The ruling reinforces the importance of the precautionary principle. Where credible health concerns have been identified, protective information should not be delayed. History has repeatedly shown that waiting for complete certainty can allow preventable harms to continue.
Providing information does not create fear. Providing information creates informed choice.
Consumers are trusted to make decisions about many aspects of their lives when they have access to clear information. Wireless technology should be treated no differently.
A continuing battle for transparency
The Italian ruling follows years of debate over whether warnings and precautionary information about mobile phone radiation have been adequately communicated to the public.
Concerns have been raised by independent scientists and campaigners that regulatory approaches, conflicts of interest, and repeated reassurance messages may have contributed to delays in communicating information about reported health concerns.
The responsibility extends beyond manufacturers to regulators, public institutions, the media, and those responsible for evaluating scientific evidence and protecting public health. Where significant commercial interests exist, transparency and accurate communication of scientific evidence become even more important.
The public must be able to trust that evidence raising health concerns is properly considered and communicated.
The role of the media
The media has a vital role in ensuring that issues affecting public health and everyday life receive appropriate scrutiny.
At a time when public trust in institutions and information sources is under increasing pressure, maintaining confidence requires journalism that investigates thoroughly, questions assumptions, and examines evidence from scientists, researchers, legal experts, and public health sources.
High-quality investigative reporting is essential to transparency, accountability, and restoring public trust.
A global message for governments and technology companies
The Italian Supreme Court decision carries a wider message: transparency and access to information are essential principles in the relationship between technology companies, governments, and the public.
Decisions affecting information, safety, and consumer choice must be guided by openness, accountability, and respect for the public’s right to understand the technologies that affect their lives.
Personal perspective on precaution and public protection
As Chris Woollams, one of the endorsers of the report Cellphone and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, stated:
The Right to Know: The Foundation of Responsible Innovation
The right to know is not a threat to innovation. It is the foundation of responsible innovation.
Transparency, accountability, and public protection must remain central when technologies raise concerns about health and safety.
The next step is clear: action is needed to protect the public and ensure access to meaningful information.
References
Italian Supreme Court
• Order No. 24015/2026.
Italian Supreme Court ruling concerning mobile phone use, consumer information obligations, and health-related concerns.
Available at:
https://phonegatealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Cour-supreme-de-cassation-italie.pdf
• La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno
“Uso dei cellulari e rischi per la salute: un avvocato barese batte il colosso Apple, ma i dati scientifici non sono ancora chiari.”
• Phonegate Alert (2020)
“The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms the link between a head tumour and mobile phone use.”
15 January 2020.
• International EMF Scientist Appeal
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
“International EMF Scientist Appeal.”
Scientific information and statements from scientists researching the biological effects of electromagnetic fields.
Available at:
https://emfscientist.org/
• International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)
Scientific publications on electromagnetic fields and wireless health research.
Available at:
https://icbe-emf.org/publications/
• National Toxicology Program (NTP)
Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Research.
U.S. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Available at:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones
• Ramazzini Institute Study
Falcioni, L., Bua, L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, P., De Angelis, L., Gnudi, F., et al. (2018).
“Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission.”
Environmental Research, 165, 496–503.
Available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29530389/
• Balmori, A. (2022)
“Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer.”
Environmental Research, 214, 113851.
Available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35843283/
Alternative journal link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122011781
• International EMF Collaborative (2010) Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern: Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone. Available at: https://radiationresearch.org/facts-15-reasons-for-concern/
About the author
Eileen O’Connor is Director and Co-Founder of the Radiation Research Trust, a UK charity promoting awareness, independent research, and greater transparency on electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures
