Understanding the Shift Regulation & Wearables

Wearable technology has rapidly moved from step counters to sophisticated devices capable of estimating sleep stages, heart rate variability, oxygen saturation, and even metabolic metrics.

Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated its General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices guidance. While it did not make major headlines, the update has important implications for wearable technology companies, employers implementing digital health programs, and clinicians interpreting wearable data.

For organisations investing in workplace health technologies, it’s important to understand what the change actually means. Equally important, it is necessary to understand what it does not mean.

The Key Change: Data vs Medical Claims

The FDA clarified that collecting physiological data alone does not necessarily make a product a regulated medical device.

Importantly, under the updated guidance, wearable devices may measure or estimate certain physiological metrics without requiring FDA approval. This applies when companies position them as general wellness tools rather than medical devices.

For example, common metrics in consumer wearables include:

  • Blood pressure trends
  • Blood oxygen saturation (SpO₂)
  • Heart rate variability (HRV)
  • Respiratory rate
  • Sleep stages
  • Stress or recovery scores
  • Readiness or energy scores

However, the regulatory distinction depends on how organisations use and communicate the data.

A product that tracks sleep quality as a wellness insight may fall outside medical device regulation. By contrast, a product that claims to diagnose sleep apnoea or treat insomnia would likely be classified as a medical device requiring regulatory clearance.

Ultimately, the claim determines the regulation, not the sensor.

Professional woman checking smartwatch health data in office environment

Why This Matters

The clarification makes it easier for consumer technology companies to introduce new biometric features without undergoing lengthy regulatory approval processes.

As a result, employers and workplace health programs will see:

  • More wearable products entering the market
  • More physiological metrics presented to employees
  • Greater variation in scientific validation between devices

Therefore, this creates both opportunity and risk. Wearables can support behaviour change and engagement with health. However, not all insights are clinically meaningful or validated.

What Employers and Health Leaders Should Look For

When evaluating a wearable or digital health platform making physiological claims, consider the following questions.

What type of claims does the product make?

Does the product provide general lifestyle insights, or does it claim to diagnose, treat, or monitor medical conditions?

Is the technology clinically validated?

Look for peer-reviewed research that supports the measurement accuracy or algorithms used.

Is the product regulated as a medical device?

If a product claims to detect conditions (for example, atrial fibrillation or sleep apnoea), it should typically have regulatory clearance.

How are the metrics interpreted?

Composite scores such as “recovery”, “readiness”, or “stress” often rely on proprietary algorithms. Therefore, they may not have strong clinical evidence.

What is the potential psychological impact?

Continuous monitoring can sometimes increase anxiety. In addition, it may lead to misinterpretation of normal physiological variability.

How is the data used and protected?

Finally, employers should carefully consider privacy, consent, and data governance when integrating wearable technologies into workplace health initiatives.

Doctor reviewing digital patient data on tablet in a clinical healthcare environment. Workforce Screening

FDA vs TGA: How Australia Approaches Wearable Regulation

The regulatory approach in Australia differs in several important ways.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates medical devices under the Therapeutic Goods Act. It also uses a risk-based classification system.

A wearable device is regulated as a medical device if it is intended to:

  • Diagnose disease
  • Prevent disease
  • Monitor physiological processes for medical purposes
  • Guide treatment or clinical decisions

However, if a wearable is marketed solely for general wellness purposes—such as encouraging exercise, improving sleep hygiene, or supporting stress management—it is typically not regulated by the TGA.

Importantly, compared with the FDA’s recent clarification, the TGA has historically taken a more cautious stance around implied medical use.

For example:

  • Example FeatureLikely FDA StatusLikely TGA Status
  • Sleep tracking | Wellness | Wellness
  • Sleep apnoea detection | Medical device | Medical device
  • Atrial fibrillation detection | Medical device | Medical device
  • Stress or recovery score | Wellness | Wellness
  • Blood pressure trend estimates | Depends on claim | More likely scrutinised

The key similarity between the two regulators is that marketing claims drive classification.

If a company begins implying that a wearable can detect or manage disease, it will typically trigger medical device regulation in both jurisdictions.

The Bigger Picture

The wearable health technology market is expanding rapidly. As a result, devices are increasingly capable of capturing detailed physiological data.

The FDA’s updated guidance reinforces a growing distinction between:

  • Consumer wellness technologies, designed to support lifestyle insights
  • Clinical medical devices, designed to diagnose or manage disease

For employers, clinicians, and health leaders, the challenge is navigating this expanding ecosystem thoughtfully.

Wearables can support engagement, awareness, and behavioural change. However, they should not be confused with clinically validated diagnostic tools.

Key Takeaway

When assessing wearable health technologies, focus on three questions:

What claims are being made?

What regulatory oversight applies to the product?

What evidence supports those claims?

Understanding these distinctions will help organisations adopt digital health tools responsibly.
At the same time, it helps avoid the common pitfalls of over-interpreting consumer health data.

GET EXPERT SUPPORT Employ Health can assist

If you would like help evaluating wearable technologies or digital health platforms for your workplace health strategy, the Employ Health team can assist.
Specifically, we provide independent clinical review and program design.

Start your journey to Proactive Workplace Health

Call 1300 367 519
Get started

Read the latest articles

Can’t find what you’re after?

View all articles