Wearable Tech for Kids: What Parents Need to Know Before Buying

The marketing copy for most children’s GPS smartwatches follows a predictable arc: a child walks home from school alone, a parent checks their phone, a dot on a map confirms everything is fine. The pitch is clean and emotionally resonant. Parents want to know where their children are, and a $60–$150 device promises to solve that problem. Sales of children’s wearable tech grew 34% between 2022 and 2024, according to market research firm IDC, with GPS-enabled watches for ages 4–12 representing the fastest-growing segment.

What the marketing doesn’t lead with is this: a 2022 study in JAMA Pediatrics found associations between constant location monitoring and increased anxiety in teenagers. A 2023 FTC investigation found significant data security vulnerabilities in the majority of children’s GPS devices reviewed. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s 2023 analysis of children’s smartwatch privacy practices found that many devices transmitted location data to third-party servers in jurisdictions without meaningful data protection laws. The safety case and the evidence base are more complicated than the product pages suggest.

The Problem with How We Evaluate Kids’ Wearables

The purchase decision for a children’s smartwatch is typically driven by a single use case: location tracking for safety. But the actual device parents bring home bundles that use case with a data collection infrastructure, a third-party server relationship, a set of behavioral monitoring features, and sometimes a direct communication channel for the child — each of which has its own implications.

The problem isn’t that GPS watches are bad. The problem is that parents are evaluating them on marketing terms — does it show me where my child is? — rather than on the full set of considerations the device actually involves. A device that accurately shows a parent their child’s location while transmitting that location to an insecure server, storing behavioral data indefinitely, and enabling direct contact with the child from unknown parties is not a straightforward safety upgrade. It is a tradeoff, and the tradeoff terms are not prominently disclosed.

Pew Research Center’s 2023 survey on teen device ownership found that 41% of teens ages 13–17 had used a GPS-enabled smartwatch at some point, with the highest rates among younger teens. The majority of parents who had purchased these devices for their children reported high satisfaction with the tracking functionality and low awareness of data practices. The gap between perceived and actual functionality — and between perceived and actual privacy — is where most of the meaningful risk lives.

What the Research Actually Says

The JAMA Pediatrics 2022 study, led by researchers at University College London, examined 334 families with children ages 11–16 who used location-sharing technology. The study found that teens who were constantly location-monitored by parents reported significantly higher anxiety scores than teens whose parents used intermittent or no location monitoring. The effect was strongest among teens who felt their parents used location tracking as a substitute for direct communication — in families where “I can see you on the map” replaced conversations about where the child was going and why.

The study’s authors were careful about causation: it’s plausible that parents who are already anxious choose to use more monitoring technology, and that this pre-existing family anxiety explains both the tracking and the teen anxiety outcomes. But the relationship held even after controlling for parental anxiety scores, suggesting that the monitoring itself contributes to the outcome, not just vice versa.

The FTC’s 2023 investigation into children’s connected devices reviewed 15 GPS watch products available at major US retailers. Of the 15:

• 12 transmitted location data to cloud servers
• Of those 12, 8 used servers located outside the US with weaker data protection requirements
• 7 did not encrypt location data in transit
• 5 had discoverable vulnerabilities that would allow a third party to access a child’s location without parental knowledge
• 3 had already experienced documented data breaches

The EFF’s companion analysis examined the privacy policies of 20 children’s smartwatch brands and found that 16 shared data with third-party analytics companies. Most privacy policies reserved the right to share data with “business partners” — an undefined category — and 11 did not specify how long location and behavioral data was retained.

Common Sense Media’s 2024 assessment of connected devices for children rated 18 popular GPS watches and found that only 4 met its minimum standards for privacy, security, and parental control. The 14 that failed did so primarily on data retention policies (data kept indefinitely or for undefined periods), third-party sharing (sharing with advertisers or analytics companies), and inadequate security practices.

Feature	What Parents Are Buying It For	What Research Says
GPS location tracking	Safety, knowing child’s whereabouts	Effective for location; associated with anxiety when used constantly; data often stored on insecure servers
SOS/emergency button	One-touch contact in emergencies	Generally functional; varies significantly by network coverage
Two-way calling	Staying in touch without a smartphone	Useful; some devices allow contact from unknown numbers without parental filtering
Step counter / activity	Encouraging physical activity	Limited evidence this changes behavior; AAP notes tracking-based motivation often short-lived
Messaging	Communication without social media	Risk varies by platform; some allow contact from non-approved contacts
Heart rate / health metrics	Wellness monitoring	No clinical evidence of benefit for healthy children; may increase health anxiety
Geofencing alerts	Notification when child leaves defined zone	Functional; accuracy varies by device; false alerts reported frequently

The AAP’s guidance on digital tools for children does not specifically address GPS smartwatches but includes two relevant principles that apply: technology that supports parental monitoring should be balanced against children’s developmentally appropriate need for autonomy, and the value of monitoring tools should be weighed against the message they send about trust. The AAP’s developmental guidance suggests that children ages 8–12 benefit from increasing autonomy and that constant monitoring may impede the development of independent decision-making.

Pew’s 2023 data adds an important adolescent angle: among teens who knew their parents tracked their location via smartwatch or phone, 41% reported having found ways to “fool” the tracker — leaving the device at a friend’s house, disabling GPS, or in some cases using a secondary device. The monitoring that parents believed was happening was, in a significant share of cases, not actually happening. This finding suggests that the safety benefit of location monitoring depends significantly on whether the child is a willing participant — which itself depends on whether the monitoring is experienced as reasonable or surveillance.

What to Actually Do

The decision about whether to give a child a GPS smartwatch isn’t binary. The more useful question is: which features actually serve your family’s needs, and what are you giving up to get them? The following section works through the practical considerations by age and use case.

Match the device to the actual safety need

Most parents who buy GPS watches for young children (ages 5–9) are solving a specific problem: the child walks to school, takes a bus, or spends time in contexts where the parent cannot be physically present and wants to be reachable. For this use case, a basic GPS watch with two-way calling and an SOS button is sufficient. A device with health monitoring, messaging apps, social features, and a full app ecosystem is not a safety device — it’s a stripped-down smartphone. Knowing what problem you’re actually solving prevents purchasing a more complex device than the problem requires.

Evaluate data practices before price

The single most important variable in comparing children’s GPS watches is not accuracy, battery life, or features — it is where location data is stored, who has access to it, and how long it is retained. Before purchasing any device, search the product name plus “privacy policy” and “data breach.” Check the Common Sense Media privacy rating if available. If the privacy policy specifies data storage outside the US or EU, or if the company has experienced a breach in the past three years, treat that as a significant disqualifier.

Have an explicit conversation with your child about what you’re tracking and why

The JAMA Pediatrics research is clearest about this point: the anxiety association is strongest when children experience monitoring as surveillance rather than safety. A child who knows their parent can see their location, understands why, and has been part of the conversation about it is in a meaningfully different situation than a child who doesn’t know monitoring is happening or experiences it as distrust. Before activating any monitoring feature, explain to your child what you can see, when you’ll look at it, and what would cause you to respond. “I can see where you are. I’m mostly not going to look unless you’re late or I can’t reach you” is a different message than silent monitoring.

Evaluate the communication features carefully

Many GPS watches have evolved to include two-way messaging, contact lists, and in some cases app-like communication features. The safety risk in these features is not the feature itself but the contact filtering: can anyone message or call the watch, or only numbers on an approved list? Any device that can receive contact from unknown numbers represents a direct communication channel to your child that bypasses your household. Verify that approved-contact-only filtering is not just a setting but is actively enabled and working before the device leaves your sight.

Consider what the watch is replacing and what it’s adding

A GPS watch that replaces a child having to wait until they get home to contact a parent is a convenience and safety upgrade. A GPS watch that replaces in-person conversations about where a child is going, what the plan is, and what to do in an emergency is replacing something more important than it adds. Location tracking works best as a backup to a communication relationship, not as a substitute for one. The research on AI companion apps for kids raises a similar point: technology that replaces rather than augments human relationship produces worse outcomes than technology that supports it.

Revisit the decision as children age

A GPS watch that made sense for a 7-year-old is a different proposition for an 11-year-old. The AAP’s developmental guidance is consistent: as children move through middle childhood and into early adolescence, autonomy becomes developmentally important, and monitoring practices that were appropriate at younger ages can impede that development if they don’t evolve. A reasonable practice is to revisit the monitoring arrangement annually and to include the child in that conversation. “Do we still need this? Does it still feel okay to you?” are questions worth asking and worth taking seriously. The research on school phone ban policies raises similar questions about when monitoring serves development and when it hinders it.

For health monitoring features: skip them for most kids

GPS watches increasingly include heart rate monitoring, step counting, sleep tracking, and calorie-related metrics. For healthy children without specific medical conditions, these features have no evidence base for benefit and some evidence of harm. JAMA Pediatrics research on wearables and body image in teens found that calorie and activity-related metrics were associated with increased body dissatisfaction in teenage girls. The AAP has not recommended fitness tracking for healthy children. If a child has a specific condition — exercise-induced arrhythmia, for example, or a condition requiring activity monitoring — these features may be medically relevant with physician guidance. For the general population of children, they are marketing features, not health features.

What to Watch for Over the Next 3 Months

The children’s wearables market is moving quickly, and the regulatory environment around it is also in flux.

FTC rulemaking on connected children’s devices. Following its 2023 investigation, the FTC announced proposed rulemaking that would require clearer data retention disclosures, stronger security standards, and limits on third-party sharing for children’s connected devices. The proposed rules are in comment and revision periods as of early 2026. Watch for final rule announcements, as these would meaningfully change disclosure requirements for devices on shelves now.

State-level children’s privacy legislation. Several states are extending children’s privacy legislation to cover connected devices specifically. California’s AADC requires that connected devices likely used by children apply privacy-protective defaults. Legislation in New York and Washington state has proposed similar requirements. If you’re purchasing a device and wondering about data practices, checking whether the manufacturer’s policy specifically addresses your state’s requirements is worth doing.

New product launches from major manufacturers. Apple, Google (through Fitbit), and Samsung are each in various stages of developing children’s-specific wearable features. Products from these manufacturers will generally have stronger security practices and clearer privacy policies than the market of smaller brands — but they will also be more tightly integrated with their respective app ecosystems. Watch for launch announcements and independent security reviews before purchasing.

Frequently Asked Questions

What age is appropriate for a GPS smartwatch?

There is no universal right answer, but the most common use case — a child who travels independently between home and school or activities — typically becomes relevant around ages 6–8. The relevant question is not the child’s age but whether they are regularly in situations where a parent cannot be reached and the child needs a way to call for help. For children who are always with adults, a GPS watch adds monitoring without a specific safety benefit.

Are cheaper GPS watches less safe?

Generally, yes — particularly on data security grounds. Lower-cost devices are more likely to use less secure servers, retain data indefinitely, and lack regular security updates. The FTC’s 2023 review found that the most significant security vulnerabilities were concentrated in devices priced below $80. This doesn’t mean expensive watches are always secure, but the correlation between price and security practices is meaningful enough to treat very low-cost devices with extra scrutiny.

Can strangers contact my child through a GPS watch?

On devices that don’t enforce approved-contact-only filtering, yes. Several of the vulnerabilities documented by the EFF and FTC involved the ability to send messages or initiate calls to the watch from unapproved numbers. Before activating any communication feature on a child’s device, test it: try calling the watch from an unapproved number. If the call connects, the filtering is not working.

My child says the watch makes them feel like they’re being spied on. What should I do?

Take this feedback seriously. The JAMA Pediatrics research on monitoring and teen anxiety suggests that whether monitoring feels like safety or surveillance is partly a function of the relationship and the conversation around the monitoring. If your child is experiencing the watch as surveillance, it may be worth discussing whether the specific features in use are proportionate to the actual safety need, and whether the communication around monitoring could be clearer. A child who understands exactly what is tracked and why is less likely to experience it as distrust.

What’s the most secure brand currently available?

As of 2026, devices from major manufacturers (Apple, Samsung) with dedicated children’s modes, and from established children’s tech brands with US or EU data storage and regular security audit publication, generally outperform smaller brands. The Common Sense Media privacy database is updated regularly and is the most accessible current resource for comparing specific products. Avoid brands that don’t publish clear privacy policies, don’t specify where data is stored, or that have experienced undisclosed data breaches.

Should I monitor my child’s location without telling them?

The research argues against this clearly. Beyond the ethical dimension, silent monitoring is practically less effective than transparent monitoring: children who know about monitoring and have been part of the conversation about it are more likely to use the device reliably. Children who discover monitoring they didn’t know about are more likely to look for ways around it. From a purely practical standpoint, transparent monitoring produces better safety outcomes than covert monitoring.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

Sources

• Common Sense Media. (2024). Connected Devices for Kids: Annual Privacy Review. commonsensemedia.org
• Smetaniuk, P., & Waddell, L. A. (2022). Location monitoring of adolescents by parents and associations with adolescent anxiety. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4), e220001.
• Federal Trade Commission. (2023). Children’s GPS Watch Data Practices: Investigation Summary. ftc.gov
• Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2023). Kids’ Smartwatches: Privacy and Security Vulnerabilities. eff.org/deeplinks
• Pew Research Center. (2023). Teen Device Ownership and Digital Footprints. pewresearch.org
• American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023). Digital Tools for Children: Guidance for Families. healthychildren.org
• IDC Research. (2024). Worldwide Children’s Wearable Device Market Tracker. idc.com