On March 26, 2026, a District of Massachusetts judge issued a decision in a false advertising case that a licensed reproductive healthcare clinic in Attleboro, Massachusetts, (Four Women Health Services, LLC) brought against its neighboring nonprofit crisis pregnancy center (Abundant Hope Pregnancy Resource Center, Inc., operating as Attleboro Women’s Health Center) (AWHC) and Choose Life Marketing, LLC (CLM), a for-profit marketing agency hired by AWHC.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in false and deceptive advertising designed to divert patients seeking abortion care away from Four Women and into AWHC’s office. Plaintiff provides abortion care services, while defendant markets itself as pro-life, is opposed to abortion, and offers opposite counseling. The dispute arose when AWHC opened its facilities directly next door to Four Women. Four Women alleged violations of Chapter 93A, arguing that AWHC and CLM engaged in false and deceptive advertising when they 1) advertised AWHC as a “Women’s Health Center” yet had no licensed doctors; 2) made false representations about abortion procedures; and 3) created an impression that AWHC performed abortions when it did not.

The court summarily dismissed the Chapter 93A claims against AWHC, finding the nonprofit was not engaged in “trade or commerce.” Plaintiff argued that AWHC’s engagement of CLM, a for-profit entity, brought its activities into the realm of trade or commerce. The court rejected this argument, reasoning that charitable organizations will almost never be engaged in “trade or commerce” for purposes of Chapter 93A, even when they engage for-profit entities in furthering their mission.

On the other hand, the court ruled that CLM was clearly engaged in trade or commerce as a for-profit entity providing services for payment. CLM’s argument that it was engaging in a charitable mission for the benefit of a nonprofit did not convince the court that it should be free from Chapter 93A liability.

The court also found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged the other elements of a Chapter 93A claim against CLM. For example, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that CLM engaged in a commercial transaction when providing its services, and that the actions caused harm. That determination came from a specific list of 591 women that plaintiff had contacted, whom CLM had also helped AWHC contact. Plaintiff alleged it suffered further harm to its reputation during the process of AWHC and CLM attempting to divert patients.

Lastly, the court found that plaintiff sufficiently alleged CLM engaged in deceptive advertising, even when all of its content was literally true, because half-truths and truths that create an overall misleading impression can be grounds for Chapter 93A liability. The court considered plaintiff’s allegations strong enough to survive the motion to dismiss because AWHC was not a licensed clinic that could perform medical services, but its marketing gave the opposite overall impression.

This case shows that a for-profit marketing firm may not be shielded from liability when contracting with a nonprofit — its paid commercial activities may place it within Chapter 93A’s reach. Further, the decision is a reminder that technically true statements may still constitute deceptive advertising under Chapter 93A if they create an overall misleading impression or omit material information.