Fake Clinics Quietly Edit Their Websites After Being Called Out on HIPAA Claims

12 hours 15 minutes ago

In a promising sign that public pressure works, several crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs, also known as “fake clinics”) have quietly scrubbed misleading language about privacy protections from their websites. 

Earlier this year, EFF sent complaints to attorneys general in eight states (FL, TX, AR, and MO, TN, OK, NE, and NC), asking them to investigate these centers for misleading the public with false claims about their privacy practices—specifically, falsely stating or implying that they are bound by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). These claims are especially deceptive because many of these centers are not licensed medical clinics or do not have any medical providers on staff, and thus are not subject to HIPAA’s protections.

Now, after an internal follow-up investigation, we’ve found that our efforts are already bearing fruit: Of the 21 CPCs we cited as exhibits in our complaints, six have completely removed HIPAA references from their websites, and one has made partial changes (removed one of two misleading claims). Notably, every center we flagged in our letters to Texas AG Ken Paxton and Arkansas AG Tim Griffin has updated its website—a clear sign that clinics in these states are responding to scrutiny.

While 14 remain unchanged, this is a promising development. These centers are clearly paying attention—and changing their messaging. We haven’t yet received substantive responses from the state attorneys general beyond formal acknowledgements of our complaints, but these early results confirm what we’ve long believed: transparency and public pressure work.

These changes (often quiet edits to privacy policies on their websites or deleting blog posts) signal that the CPC network is trying to clean up their public-facing language in the wake of scrutiny. But removing HIPAA references from a website doesn’t mean the underlying privacy issues have been fixed. Most CPCs are still not subject to HIPAA, because they are not licensed healthcare providers. They continue to collect sensitive information without clearly disclosing how it’s stored, used, or shared. And in the absence of strong federal privacy laws, there is little recourse for people whose data is misused. 

These clinics have misled patients who are often navigating complex and emotional decisions about their health, misrepresented themselves as bound by federal privacy law, and falsely referred people to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for redress—implying legal oversight and accountability. They made patients believe their sensitive data was protected, when in many cases, it was shared with affiliated networks, or even put on the internet for anyone to see—including churches or political organizations.

That’s why we continue to monitor these centers—and call on state attorneys general to do the same. 

Rindala Alajaji

【出版トピックス】注目される「TOSHOP」や「GOAT meets」の挑戦=出版部会

16 hours 50 minutes ago
 ◆上半期の出版市場7737億円(2.1%減)に 出版科学研究所は、25年上半期(1~6月期)の紙と電子を合わせた推定販売金額が7737億円(前年同期比2.1%減)になると発表。内訳は、紙の出版物が4926億円(同5.4%減)だが、出版科学研究所による紙の推定販売金額には、近年増加している出版社と書店の直接取引や出版社による直接販売は含まれていない。 紙の出版物の内訳は、書籍が3132億円(同1.5%減)、雑誌が1795億(同11.4%減)。雑誌は月刊誌(週刊誌以外のすべて、..
JCJ

[B] 戦後80年の前、何があったのか フィリピン・ネグロス島の日本兵

1 day 5 hours ago
東京新聞8月11日号がフィリピン・ネグロス島における旧日本軍兵士と戦闘について書いている(「20代記者が受け継ぐ戦争」上)。25歳の若手記者が物語を紡ぐ。兵士は米軍の機銃掃射で逃げ惑い、次々と死んでいった。サトウキビ畑に隠れ、山岳地帯に逃れて生き延び、生還した。その人の兄はフィリピン・パナイ島で戦死した。(大野和興)
日刊ベリタ