In May 2022, a Vice investigation revealed that SafeGraph, a major data broker, had been selling detailed location data tracking visitors to abortion clinics—including where they came from, how long they stayed, and where they went afterward. The data was being sold cheaply, with a week’s worth of information from over 600 Planned Parenthood locations available for just over $160.
This wasn’t just theoretical surveillance; anti-abortion organizations were actively purchasing this data and using it to target people with advertisements while they were physically inside abortion clinics. The scandal sparked immediate backlash from Senator Elizabeth Warren, 13 Senate Democrats, and privacy advocates nationwide, forcing SafeGraph to announce on May 4, 2022, that it would permanently stop selling abortion clinic location data. While there is no formal litigation settlement against SafeGraph itself, the company’s voluntary response came after intense congressional pressure and regulatory scrutiny—marking a watershed moment in the debate over location data privacy and corporate accountability.
Table of Contents
- How SafeGraph Collected and Sold Location Data on Abortion Clinic Visitors
- Anti-Abortion Activists Used SafeGraph Data to Target Clinic Visitors with Advertisements
- Congressional Pressure and SafeGraph’s Voluntary Commitment to Stop
- The Broader Data Broker Industry Problem and Ongoing FTC Action
- Why SafeGraph’s Voluntary Stop Wasn’t the Same as Legal Accountability
- The Chilling Effect on Reproductive Healthcare Privacy
- Future Outlook for Location Data Privacy Regulation
How SafeGraph Collected and Sold Location Data on Abortion Clinic Visitors
SafeGraph operated as a location data aggregator, collecting anonymous mobile phone location signals from various sources and selling that data to companies, researchers, and organizations. The company purchased location information that came from smartphone apps, location services, and other mobile tracking infrastructure, then repackaged and sold it to clients. For abortion clinics specifically, SafeGraph offered datasets that included the origin points of visitors (showing where people traveled from), dwell times (how long they stayed in the building), and destination points (where they went after leaving).
According to Vice’s investigation, this granular tracking data was incredibly cheap—approximately $160 per week for a dataset covering more than 600 Planned Parenthood locations across the United States. This low price point meant that almost any organization or individual with a modest budget could purchase access to real-time or near-real-time information about people seeking reproductive healthcare. The data aggregation model that SafeGraph employed isn’t unique to abortion clinics—the company sold location data on visitors to churches, mosques, immigration offices, and other sensitive locations. However, what made the abortion clinic data particularly troubling was not just the sensitivity of the location, but how it was immediately weaponized by anti-abortion activists and organizations that purchased access.
Anti-Abortion Activists Used SafeGraph Data to Target Clinic Visitors with Advertisements
The revelation that anti-abortion organizations were purchasing SafeGraph’s location data and using it to run targeted ad campaigns brought the abstract concept of “location data brokers” into stark practical focus. Armed with information about people’s movements, anti-abortion groups could identify individuals who had visited abortion clinics and then deliver advertisements to them across the internet—reaching them while they were still inside the clinic or immediately afterward. This targeting method was far more precise and intrusive than typical online advertising; it combined physical location information with digital follow-up, creating a coordinated surveillance and persuasion campaign.
However, SafeGraph itself did not develop the algorithms or mechanisms for this targeting—that was done by the customers who purchased the data. SafeGraph’s role was as a data supplier. The company maintained that it had policies against misuse and didn’t specifically market the abortion clinic data for anti-abortion purposes. Nevertheless, when demand for the data and its misuse became public, SafeGraph faced pressure to take responsibility for enabling this use case by making the data available in the first place.
Congressional Pressure and SafeGraph’s Voluntary Commitment to Stop
On the same day the Vice investigation published its findings, Senator Elizabeth Warren and 13 Senate Democrats sent a formal letter to SafeGraph demanding the company cease the sale of location data related to abortion clinics and other reproductive healthcare facilities. The letter emphasized both the privacy violations and the potential for real-world harm to people exercising their constitutional right to seek abortion care. This wasn’t a threat of legislation or regulatory action—at least not initially—but a direct demand backed by the political weight of Senate Democrats and the incoming spotlight of a major media investigation.
SafeGraph responded swiftly. On May 4, 2022, just days after the Vice story broke, the company announced that it would permanently stop selling location data for “facilities that can be classified as belonging to the abortion and reproductive health industry.” In the same statement, Placer.ai, another location data broker facing similar scrutiny, made an identical commitment. SafeGraph’s decision to stop the practice without waiting for a lawsuit or regulatory fine was notable—it was a choice driven by reputational pressure and political accountability rather than legal liability. The company did not admit wrongdoing and framed its decision as aligning with its “values” regarding health privacy, though critics argued the real motivation was avoiding the business and legal complications that full regulatory scrutiny would bring.
The Broader Data Broker Industry Problem and Ongoing FTC Action
While SafeGraph voluntarily halted its abortion clinic data sales, the broader issue of location data brokers selling sensitive information persisted. The Federal Trade Commission continued investigating and taking enforcement actions against other data brokers engaged in similar practices. In January 2024, Vice reported that the FTC had sued Kochava, another major location data broker, for selling location data on people visiting abortion clinics and other sensitive locations. Unlike SafeGraph, Kochava did not voluntarily stop the practice—federal action was necessary to force compliance.
This contrast highlights an important reality: some data brokers will stop problematic practices when shamed into it by media coverage and political pressure, while others require formal regulatory action. The FTC’s broader stance on location data privacy has evolved significantly since the SafeGraph controversy. The agency has increasingly treated the sale of sensitive location data as a potential violation of the FTC Act’s unfair practices clause, particularly when that data could be used for discrimination, surveillance, or harm. However, this approach remains limited by the fact that most location data collectors don’t violate explicit consent laws—people do use apps that collect location data. The issue is that consumers typically don’t understand how that data will be aggregated, repackaged, and sold to third parties with harmful intentions.
Why SafeGraph’s Voluntary Stop Wasn’t the Same as Legal Accountability
It’s crucial to understand that SafeGraph’s decision to stop selling abortion clinic data did not result in any financial penalties, legal judgments, or forced compensation to affected individuals. No class action lawsuit was filed against SafeGraph, no settlement fund was established, and no individual who had their location tracked without their knowledge received any compensation. The company’s response was purely prospective—it would stop the practice going forward—rather than retroactive. This matters because the data had already been sold, downloaded, and potentially used by anti-abortion organizations to create detailed maps of clinic visitors.
For people whose location data was harvested and sold without their knowledge or consent, the lack of litigation or settlement meant there was no legal avenue for damages or accountability. SafeGraph didn’t admit it had violated anyone’s rights, didn’t acknowledge it had profited from illegal data sales, and didn’t set aside funds to reimburse affected individuals. The voluntary commitment was presented as a policy change, not an admission of liability. Critics of the data broker industry argue that this gap—between stopping a harmful practice and facing consequences for past harms—is exactly why regulatory action and legislation are necessary rather than relying on corporate goodwill.
The Chilling Effect on Reproductive Healthcare Privacy
The SafeGraph scandal had a broader chilling effect on reproductive healthcare access and privacy. Some people, after learning that their visits to abortion clinics could be tracked and sold to anti-abortion groups, became more cautious about seeking care—traveling further for services or delaying procedures to avoid being tracked. While hard numbers on this chilling effect are difficult to obtain, privacy advocates documented anecdotal reports of this concern.
Additionally, the revelation prompted broader questions about location data collected from other sensitive locations: immigration facilities, religious institutions, mental health providers, and addiction treatment centers. Healthcare providers and clinics began asking harder questions about data security and whether patient location data could be protected from brokers and ad-tech companies. Some clinics pushed for stronger data privacy policies and state legislation to protect patient information from aggregation and resale. However, for individuals whose data had already been purchased and downloaded by anti-abortion groups, these policy changes came too late.
Future Outlook for Location Data Privacy Regulation
Since the SafeGraph controversy, there has been increased momentum for location data privacy legislation. Several states have considered or passed laws regulating the sale of location data, particularly data that reveals visits to sensitive locations like abortion clinics, medical facilities, religious institutions, and political organizations. The debate at the federal level continues, with the FTC taking enforcement action against egregious data brokers while Congress considers more comprehensive privacy legislation.
The SafeGraph case also highlighted a persistent gap in consumer protection: while many data privacy laws focus on consent and transparency, they struggle to address the aggregation and resale of data collected by third-party apps. Consumers who use navigation apps, weather apps, or social media may have no idea that their location data is being aggregated and sold to data brokers. Future regulation will likely need to address not just the data brokers themselves, but also the upstream app developers and location service providers that enable this data collection in the first place.