FTC, four states sue WPATH over gender care claims
Get the Health newsletter
Daily health & science — research, biotech, public health, the studies worth knowing. Free.
- The FTC and attorneys general from Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas filed suit Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, alleging the group misled children and parents about the benefits and risks of surgeries and drugs.
- The lawsuit claims WPATH "deceived many consumers into believing that its treatment guidelines are based on strong evidence derived from scientific methods," citing the Cass review commissioned by England's health agency and the Trump administration's own review of gender dysphoria evidence.
- WPATH rejected the allegations, saying the FTC has no jurisdiction over its noncommercial speech and "no place interfering with the process of individualized medical decision-making," and predicted it would prevail again.
- The Northern District of Texas, where the suit was filed, is a court where the Trump administration has centralized legal efforts on gender-affirming care — NYU Langone recently received a grand jury subpoena from the same district.
- Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court ruled in WPATH's favor last month on First Amendment grounds, finding "extensive evidence of animus and wafer-thin justifications lacking evidentiary support" behind the FTC's earlier probe — a pattern echoed by several other federal judges blocking similar federal investigations.
- Then-FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak proposed at an agency workshop nearly a year ago that statements like clinicians telling parents "Would you rather have a dead son than a live daughter?" could constitute fraud or deception — the same position the lawsuit now formalizes.
Why it matters: The FTC has joined four state AGs to sue WPATH in the administration's preferred Northern District of Texas, after Judge Boasberg found the earlier FTC probe showed "extensive evidence of animus and wafer-thin justifications." By pairing the FTC with state AGs and citing the administration's own contested review, the suit tests whether state consumer-protection law succeeds where federal courts have blocked the government.
Ask SkimNews
