The Supreme Court’s evisceration of the federal constitutional right to abortion has raised the specter of criminal and civil liability for abortion providers and patients. Police and prosecutors have easy access to commercial reservoirs of intimate data. As individual accounts made clear in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, corporate surveillance of intimate life chilled expressive activities, such as searching for information about reproductive health and using period tracking apps. Health professionals did not feel safe to speak out about the impact of new abortion laws. Harassment and threats directed at abortion clinics and at people seeking abortion services ensured their silence. Evidence of chilling effects was anecdotal, yet empirically unproven. That is no longer the case.
This Article describes the results of the first empirical study of post-Dobbs chilling effects. Our study explores how view counts for Wikipedia articles on period tracking apps and Google search terms related to period tracking apps decreased after the widespread media coverage of the new legal, privacy, and personal risks that the Dobbs decision created for period tracking app users. This Article sets forth our study design, explores the results, and discusses the implications for lawmakers, courts, and advocates. Lawmakers can rely on our study to show that people are being deterred from accessing crucial information that could help them better understand their reproductive health. Privacy law enforcers can leverage our findings to show proof of harm for privacy violations and to show standing. This study goes a long way to providing the proof needed to justify strong intimate privacy protections.