Cycle Tracking Apps: Empowerment or Exploitation?

The use of menstrual cycle tracking apps (CTAs) has increased dramatically as ways to support empowering control by women. But what if they are not as they seem? Jessica Snow, MSc Global Health student, King’s College London, addresses some of the issues of using CTAs, questioning if, instead, they are leading to more oppression.

Introduction

The recent surge of the FemTech (female technology) industry aiming to address women’s unique health needs has developed to educate and empower women, with many products claiming to also bridge the gender health gap. Cycle tracking apps (CTAs) have been developed to monitor menstruation and are now considered a staple of modern healthcare, but what is the true cost of this digital solution?

The Embodied Impact of Cycle Tracking

At first glance, CTAs are a feminist triumph! With over 100 million monthly users, these apps highlight a deep desire for women to understand their own bodies whilst destigmatising menstruation. However, this digital shift is accompanied by significant impacts for women, with recent evidence revealing a “national scandal” as young women are frequently subjected to misinformation, data exploitation and inappropriate monetisation under the guise of ‘empowerment’.¹

Through ‘algorithmic filtering,’ CTAs can alter user perceptions and behaviour beyond the activity of period tracking itself.² From pain severity labels and symptom descriptions to personalised notifications, the language used within CTAs influences women’s interpretations of their own experiences, often leading them to modify their behaviour.² For some women, this might mean rescheduling plans due to a digitally predicted period, but for others, the decision to take painkillers or have unprotected sex on ‘infertile days’ is solely influenced by the CTA.

By positioning their advice as neutral and data-driven, CTAs imply that users can trust their recommendations without needing to make their own independent decisions. This over reliance on technological insights encourages women’s dependency on algorithmic data instead of trusting their bodily intuition, devaluing their embodied knowledge.

The Data Isn’t Neutral

The reliability on CTAs is further complicated by the AI tools that power them. Research shows that different CTAs can provide varying predictions for ovulation and period dates, even when using the exact same data.²
Most CTAs are marketed as pregnancy aiding tools, claiming to “use data science to help you create your tiny miracles”, but such ‘data science’ isn’t necessarily inclusive.³ CTAs often reflect discriminatory stereotypes, with fertile window predictions proven to be less accurate for Black women.² This isn’t a technical glitch, but a systemic flaw.

Digital period tracking is a common requirement of patients when undergoing investigations for conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis, as this data can evidence women’s symptoms to support a diagnosis.⁴ If the evidence is inaccurate, the power for women to advocate for themselves disappears. This contributes to the systemic disparities impacting Black women, who are already 50% less likely to receive an endometriosis diagnosis and five times more likely to die during childbirth than white women, despite maternal deaths in the UK being extremely rare.⁵

Criminalising Women’s Embodiment

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of CTAs is their unethical lack of privacy policies, which leave users unable to consent to the secondary uses of their intimate data.⁶ This is particularly concerning in the current global climate, where gendered forms of oppression are restricting women’s reproductive autonomy.

Abortion remains a criminal offence in the UK, unless authorised by two physicians and performed within the legal time limits.⁶ Just last year, the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) issued guidance on their approach to child death investigations, advising officers to access women’s digital devices and CTAs to assess their “knowledge and intention” following a pregnancy loss.⁷ This extreme governance weaponises women’s period data, turning their digital footprints into criminal evidence.

Women are relying on CTAs to help them manage their health, yet these flawed digital tools are proven to produce inconsistent advice. Inaccurate predictions can lead to an unplanned pregnancy or late-stage loss, with this data subsequently being used to prove intent to achieve abortion. A woman who records her miscarriage after the 24-week threshold could be subjected to a child death investigation, a process that offers little recognition for the profound embodied trauma involved.⁷ In this shocking climate, a woman’s proactive attempt at self-care is being transformed into evidence used for her prosecution.

Conclusion: We Need Inclusive Innovation

The sad paradox of FemTech is that often, the very tools designed to support women’s agency are increasingly being used to override their autonomy. “Menstrual tracking data is being used to control people’s reproductive lives,” as products of intimate data are sold to the highest bidder or handed to the police for interrogation.⁸ When we allow such unethical processes and encourage women’s participation in them, we are not witnessing empowerment, but a new form of oppression.

Digital period tracking should be a genuine healthcare tool, and we must demand a radical shift in how these technologies are developed and maintained.

For CTAs to be truly reliable and safe, we need to address biased algorithms and implement real privacy protections. The Women and Equalities Committee call for accurate period trackers that are grounded in diverse data to be accessible via the NHS app.¹ By recognising intersectional oppression and honouring lived experience, we can create not-for-profit, consensual CTAs that are genuine tools of empowerment for all women.

References

1. Women and Equalities Committee (2026) Menstrual health of girls and young women. House of Commons: London.
2. Punzi, M. & Thuis, T. (2025) Mapping ethical concerns in algorithm-driven period and fertility tracking technologies. Contraception, 110837.
3. Lupton, D. (2014) Quantified sex: a critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality: Routledge
4. Femme Health (2025) Cycle tracking to manage conditions like PCOS and endometriosis.
5. Department of Health and Social Care (2022) Women’s Health Strategy for England
6. Malki, L. et al (2024) Exploring Privacy Practices of Female Health Apps in a Post-Roe World.
7. MSI Reproductive Choices UK (2025) NPCC advises search of homes and phones after pregnancy loss. MSI Reproductive Choices UK: London
8. Felsberger, S. (2025) The high stakes of tracking menstruation. Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy: MCTD Cambridge.

March 2026

Jessica Snow

Jessica Snow is an MSc Global Health student at King’s College London, specialising in the intersection of women’s health research, advocacy and policy. Also a qualified IAPT Therapist, Jessica is currently researching women’s experiences of ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Follow her journey on LinkedIn! Email: jessica.snow@kcl.ac.uk