Key facts
- The FTC sued the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) alleging deceptive practices.
- The lawsuit claims WPATH misled parents and patients about the necessity, effectiveness, and safety of gender-affirming treatments.
- Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas joined the FTC as plaintiffs in the federal court case.
- WPATH stated the FTC's claims are baseless and that the agency should not interfere with medical decision-making.
- Previous FTC investigations into WPATH and other provider groups were halted by federal judges.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), alleging that the organization's recommendations for transgender care constitute deceptive practices that violate the FTC Act. The agency claims WPATH misled parents and patients regarding the necessity, effectiveness, and safety of treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-change surgeries.
Filed in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, the complaint includes several states as co-plaintiffs: Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, and Texas. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson stated that children and their parents need complete and truthful information when making decisions about medical services.
However, WPATH has dismissed the FTC's claims as "baseless," asserting that the agency is not a medical provider and should not interfere with individualized medical decision-making. This lawsuit follows previous FTC investigations into WPATH and other physician organizations that developed guidelines for gender-affirming care. Federal judges had previously sided with WPATH and the American Academy of Pediatrics in halting those investigations, citing First Amendment concerns, though a suit brought by the Endocrine Society is still pending.
The Trump administration has previously pointed to a British government review and its own studies that questioned the evidence supporting gender-affirming care's efficacy. The administration also supported Tennessee's successful defense of its law barring such care for minors at the Supreme Court.