Six Women’s Health Startups File Landmark EU Complaints Against Big Tech Over Censorship

Six pioneering women’s health startups have jointly filed formal complaints with the European Commission, calling out tech giants for systematically censoring female health content online. Invoking the Digital Services Act (DSA), the companies are demanding accountability from platforms including Meta, Google, Amazon, and LinkedIn for disproportionately restricting, removing, or shadowbanning content related to women’s health.

Led by advocacy group CensHERship and blended-finance initiative The Case For Her, the action is supported by leading femtech brands Bea Fertility, Aquafit Intimate, Geen, HANX, Lactapp, and Daye. The companies report that inconsistent and biased content moderation is actively harming their businesses, impeding innovation, and limiting public access to medically accurate information on critical issues—from fertility and menopause to postpartum care and sexual wellness.

“From menopause education to sexual wellness, businesses working to address critical gaps in women’s healthcare are being unfairly penalised,” said Clio Wood and Anna O’Sullivan, co-founders of CensHERship. “We can’t improve women’s health if we can’t talk about our bodies using anatomically-correct language.”

The complaints outline major concerns, including:

• Inconsistent enforcement of platform policies, with medically sound content labeled as “adult” or “political”

• Lack of transparency and poor appeal processes when content is removed or flagged

• Gender bias in ad approval, where content on female libido, menopause, or reproductive health is restricted, while male erectile dysfunction ads are routinely accepted

• Financial harm to femtech companies, due to suspended accounts, blocked ads, and reduced visibility

Examples cited in the filings include:

• Bea Fertility’s storefront was rejected by Amazon for using terms like “vagina” and “vaginal canal,” while “semen” was permitted

• Aquafit Intimate had LinkedIn posts on endometriosis and vaginal health removed under the label of “illegal products and services”

• Daye’s diagnostic tampon ads were blocked by Google under policies that don’t apply to their products

• Geen’s educational post on vulva diversity was flagged, while a post on gender bias in tech was categorized as “political”

• HANX had condom ads rejected despite complying with Meta’s stated guidelines

• Lactapp’s breastfeeding support content was censored, with Instagram even inserting a “beep” over the Spanish word teta (breast)

These cases reflect larger industry trends. A 2025 report by the Center for Intimacy Justice found that 84% of women’s health businesses had ads rejected by Meta, 64% had listings removed from Amazon, and 66% faced ad blocks on Google. Estimated revenue losses ranged from $10,000 to $1 million per company annually, with Meta’s policies potentially costing some companies up to $5 million per year.

CensHERship’s own 2024 survey found that 95% of 95 respondents—including brands, medical professionals, and charities—had experienced censorship of women’s health or sexual wellbeing content across platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Google.

Cristina Ljungberg, co-founder of The Case For Her, emphasised the wider economic cost:

“When femtech companies face digital suppression, it limits their ability to reach users and attract investment. This not only restricts women’s access to essential health tools but also deters funding from a sector that already struggles for capital.”

The coalition is urging the European Commission to investigate the digital policies of major tech platforms and ensure fair, transparent, and unbiased content moderation. Their demands include:

• Clear and equitable advertising guidelines for women’s health

• Protection for anatomically accurate and evidence-based content

• Accessible and effective appeal mechanisms for flagged or removed content

This legal push represents a critical moment for women’s health visibility in the digital age. As platforms shape public discourse and access to healthcare resources, the question remains: who gets to speak about the female body—and who decides what’s allowed?