Crisis Pregnancy Center Fraud Prevention Act
House Bill 522, the Crisis Pregnancy Center Fraud Prevention Act, would create a new unfair and deceptive trade practice under Chapter 75 for any person or entity that advertises that it provides abortions, emergency contraception, or referrals for those services when it knows or reasonably should know that it does not actually provide them. The bill also states that the learned-profession exception to the state’s unfair trade practices law would not apply to such advertising, even if the advertiser is a licensed healthcare provider. It authorizes the Attorney General to receive complaints, investigate alleged violations, require a 10-day cure period after notice, and then seek civil enforcement if the conduct continues.
The bill would amend North Carolina’s consumer protection laws by adding a specific prohibition on misleading reproductive-health advertising and by giving the Attorney General explicit enforcement authority, including injunctive relief, corrective advertising, posted notices, civil penalties of $500 to $5,000 per violation, and damages and attorneys’ fees in private actions. It would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to study crisis pregnancy centers in the state, including their funding sources, services, staffing, privacy practices, ultrasound use, and whether they delay access to abortion or prenatal care, and to report findings by May 1, 2026. The bill appropriates $250,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money for that evaluation.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect strong support for abortion-rights advocates and skepticism toward crisis pregnancy centers, framing the measure as a consumer-protection and transparency bill. Based on the bill text, the overall sentiment is clearly critical of crisis pregnancy centers and supportive of requiring accurate, non-coercive information for pregnant people. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no additional evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main point of contention is likely whether the bill targets deceptive advertising or instead burdens crisis pregnancy centers and related nonprofit or faith-based organizations that oppose abortion. Supporters would emphasize preventing misleading claims about abortion and emergency contraception access, while opponents may argue the bill singles out crisis pregnancy centers, raises free-speech or religious-liberty concerns, and could chill outreach by nonprofits. Another likely dispute is the scope of the DHHS study and the collection of detailed information about funding, clients, records, and staffing, which critics may view as intrusive or politically motivated.