Tech companies face a legal nightmare if Roe v. Wade is overturned

Tech companies will need to decide how they’ll handle dozens of states looking into their users for seeking abortions.

A photo of the Texas State Capitol building

A six-week Texas abortion ban takes aim at those aiding and abetting the performance or inducement of an abortion, even unknowingly.

Photo: Tamir Kalifa / Stringer via Getty Images

The Supreme Court is poised to end abortion rights as the U.S. has known them for five decades, creating a state-by-state approach to reproductive law that will test tech companies’ commitments to the privacy of user data and their own workers.

Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed the authenticity of a leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, and while he emphasized it wasn’t final, it’s clear that conservatives have the votes to significantly curtail abortion access. In the process, they’re all but certain to uphold state laws that would bring down lawsuits and investigations on people seeking to terminate pregnancies, and in some cases even on those who might transport them to clinics or advertise to them about health care options.

That could mean tech companies, which generally comply with legal information demands, could suddenly be helping states investigate and punish people who seek or facilitate abortions, and even those who help them unwittingly.

There’s little doubt that consumers will turn to tech they carry in their pockets when they’re seeking abortions. Tech, in other words, will snitch on its users thanks to the data-driven business models it’s spent decades building. After all, once the procedure is outlawed or curtailed in roughly half of U.S. states, law enforcement will take a keen interest in precise data revealing intentions and locations — and not just by those who seek abortions.

Tech companies are in a bind

A six-week Texas abortion ban, for instance, takes aim at those aiding and abetting the performance or inducement of an abortion, even unknowingly, leading to concerns that it will affect ride-hail drivers taking patients to clinics or even potentially people advertising information about abortion.

In fact, as with many types of investigations, digital tools already appear to have played a role in punishments related to abortion drugs, according to Mother Jones. And a Vice report on Tuesday revealed a data broker selling information on people who visited Planned Parenthood after pulling the data from “ordinary apps” — information that can make its way into the hands of the authorities.

These issues would likely give anyone thinking about an abortion in a state where it’s banned ample reason to increase their digital hygiene: to chat only on fully encrypted platforms, avoid saved Google searches, disguise web traffic, block ads, ditch smartphones entirely when traveling for health care and minimize data-collection and sharing by apps. All of this, of course, will make it more difficult for people to access abortion.

But it also puts companies in a bind. Facebook may have to decide how it will respond to a subpoena seeking the IP address of an abortion rights group administrator who fundraises. Google might face demands about the identities of advertisers trying to get out information on how to obtain an abortion in states where it’s illegal. GoFundMe may have to figure out how it’ll treat users raising money for out-of-state abortions. Tech and telecom, which face thousands of so-called geo-fenced warrants each year, could have to deal with demands seeking to find out who was merely near a reproductive health care clinic.

In theory, these issues may not present much conflict, even if company leadership may not like what they have to do: The big platforms say they respond to valid legal demands for information on users and, at least for Meta and Google, the amount of information they’re handing over around the world is going up all the time.

In practice, though, many of these cases involve judgment calls, both about formal law enforcement requests as well as the handling of the content they moderate. In the case of subpoenas and other demands, the companies can choose to push back — often if the requests are incredibly broad, but also potentially to protect free speech — and they seem to cough up information close to 80% of the time.

An uncertain legal landscape

The questions around how to handle these requests were all vexing for companies’ legal departments when it was just Mississippi that was going to the highest court in the land with its ban, which has a limit at 15 weeks and allows for private lawsuits.

With its ultimate decision on Mississippi, which is expected in June, the Supreme Court could bring an explosion of complexity, with states barring abortion overall or at different periods after conception that can be hard for even pregnant people to track.

In addition, all of these companies also have their own workers to worry about. Uber and Lyft have pledged to cover drivers’ legal expenses if they’re caught up in Texas’ provision on abetting abortions, and the two ride-hail companies just extended the program to Oklahoma, which passed a similar law. It’s not clear how they’ll treat requests for riders’ information, though.

Meanwhile, Apple, Yelp, Match Group and Bumble are covering employee expenses when they travel out-of-state to get an abortion. And Amazon announced, just hours before the Supreme Court’s draft opinion leaked, that it would cover up to $4,000 for travel to care for certain non-life-threatening health care expenses, nodding not just to abortion bans but the new limits on care for transgender people. It’s not clear, however, how these companies will handle abortion laws varying across dozens of states instead of just two.

What is clear is that these companies will have to contend with a legal landscape that is poised to shift profoundly. Almost any decision they take could put them in the crosshairs of state governments — some of which are increasingly willing to punish big companies for their social stances — or will end up upsetting and harming their users and workers. And they’ll have to make those decisions soon.


What the economic downturn means for pay packages

The war for talent rages on, but dynamics are shifting back to the employers.

Compensation packages could start to look different as companies reshuffle the balance of cash and equity.

Illustration: Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

The market is turning. Tech stocks are slumping — which is bad news for employees — and even industry powerhouses are slowing hiring and laying people off. Tech talent is still in high demand, but compensation packages could start to look different as companies recruit.

“It’s a little bit like whiplash,” compensation consultant Ashish Raina said of the downturn. Raina, who mainly works with startups that have 200 to 800 employees, previously worked as the director of Talent at Index Ventures and head of Compensation and Talent Analytics at Box. “I do think there’s going to be an interesting reckoning in terms of pay increases going forward, how that pay is delivered.”

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.
Sponsored Content

Why the digital transformation of industries is creating a more sustainable future

Qualcomm’s chief sustainability officer Angela Baker on how companies can view going “digital” as a way not only toward growth, as laid out in a recent report, but also toward establishing and meeting environmental, social and governance goals.

Three letters dominate business practice at present: ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals. The number of mentions of the environment in financial earnings has doubled in the last five years, according to GlobalData: 600,000 companies mentioned the term in their annual or quarterly results last year.

But meeting those ESG goals can be a challenge — one that businesses can’t and shouldn’t take lightly. Ahead of an exclusive fireside chat at Davos, Angela Baker, chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm, sat down with Protocol to speak about how best to achieve those targets and how Qualcomm thinks about its own sustainability strategy, net zero commitment, other ESG targets and more.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


How 'Zuck Bucks' saved the 2020 election — and fueled the Big Lie

The true story of how Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $419 million donation became the 2020 election’s most enduring conspiracy theory.

Mark Zuckerberg is smack in the center of one of the 2020 election’s multitudinous conspiracies.

Illustration: Mike McQuade; Photos: Getty Images

If Mark Zuckerberg could have imagined the worst possible outcome of his decision to insert himself into the 2020 election, it might have looked something like the scene that unfolded inside Mar-a-Lago on a steamy evening in early April.

There in a gilded ballroom-turned-theater, MAGA world icons including Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks and former president Donald Trump himself were gathered for the premiere of “Rigged: The Zuckerberg Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump.”

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.


From frenzy to fear: Trading apps grapple with anxious investors

After riding the stock-trading wave last year, trading apps like Robinhood have disenchanted customers and jittery investors.

Retail stock trading is still an attractive business, as shown by the news that crypto exchange FTX is dipping its toes in the market by letting some U.S. customers trade stocks.

Photo: Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For a brief moment, last year’s GameStop craze made buying and selling stocks cool, even exciting, for a new generation of young investors. Now, that frenzy has turned to fear.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev pointed to “a challenging macro environment” marked by rising prices and interest rates and a slumping market in a call with analysts explaining his company’s lackluster results. The downturn, he said, was something “most of our customers have never experienced in their lifetimes.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


Broadcom is reportedly in talks to acquire VMware

It hasn't been long since it left the ownership of Dell Technologies.

Photo: Yichuan Cao/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Broadcom is said to be in discussions with VMware to buy the cloud computing company for as much as $50 billion.

Keep Reading Show less
Jamie Condliffe

Jamie Condliffe ( @jme_c) is the executive editor at Protocol, based in London. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, he worked on the business desk at The New York Times, where he edited the DealBook newsletter and wrote Bits, the weekly tech newsletter. He has previously worked at MIT Technology Review, Gizmodo, and New Scientist, and has held lectureships at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. He also holds a doctorate in engineering from the University of Oxford.

Latest Stories