SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2605.02016

What's on Your Mind? Exploring Privacy of Mental Health Apps

Abstract

Therapy and life-coaching apps have grown rapidly in number, variety, and popularity. At the same time, their users often share highly sensitive and personal information, including mental health issues, trauma experiences, fantasies, desires, and relationship difficulties. This prompts the need to examine privacy practices across the ecosystem. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of a corpus of 25 popular Android mental health and life-coaching apps, such as Replika and Headspace. It builds on static analysis and dynamic network traffic analysis, coupled with identifying gaps between each app's observed behavior and its privacy policies. Our analysis highlights serious concerns and substantial transparency gaps. First, every app in our corpus embeds at least one tracker SDK not named in its privacy policy, and 85\% of the apps we instrument fail to disclose at least half of the trackers detected in their APKs. Second, more than half of the apps declare several dangerous permissions without corresponding privacy-policy disclosures, including camera or microphone permissions. Third, nearly half the apps disclose third-party AI processing (e.g., via OpenAI, Anthropic, and Groq) in their privacy policies, while several use only generic language (e.g., "AI services"), failing to identify which company receives user data. Overall, our results show that current disclosure practices fall short of the transparency needed for meaningful informed consent. We argue for a significantly updated regulatory framework for therapy apps that more closely aligns with the professional and ethical standards that bind licensed human therapists.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Chloe Georgiou, Hans Lu, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Gene Tsudik. 2026-08-28. What's on Your Mind? Exploring Privacy of Mental Health Apps. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.02016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

From Design Principles to Prototype: A Game for Students with ADHD and Learning Disabilities Transitioning to Post-Secondary Education

Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Learning Disabilities (LD) can face significant academic, social, and organizational challenges when transitioning to post-secondary education. This paper presents a literature-informed serious game prototype designed to support this transition. We synthesize prior work into design considerations for students with ADHD and LD and show how these considerations are instantiated in a story-driven game.

cs.MM

BIRDS: Characterizing and Understanding Biodiversity Impact of Large Language Model Serving

Large language model (LLM) serving creates environmental impacts beyond carbon and water, including ecosystem damage through biodiversity-related pathways. We present BIRDS, a framework for Biodiversity Impact of Request-Driven LLM Serving. BIRDS defines request-level functional units, quantifies operational and embodied biodiversity impact, and introduces Quality-Normalized Biodiversity Impact (QNBI) to jointly analyze ecological impact and response quality. Across diverse workloads, models, GPUs, and regions, BIRDS reveals that biodiversity impact accumulates at scale and exposes quality-aware serving tradeoffs. The code is available at https://github.com/TianyaoShi/BIRDS.

q-bio.OT

Experts Disagree on How to Fight AI Disinformation, but Agree That Health and Politics Need Different Solutions

When 54 international experts assessed AI-generated disinformation threats, they revealed a surprising pattern: while video deepfakes received the highest average threat ratings in the political domain (M = 6.31/7), the pattern differed in the health domain, where AI-generated text received the highest average rating (M = 5.80). Experts also diverge on what to do: government regulation drew both the most "most effective" (30%) and the most "least effective" (15%) votes, though rating distributions were contested rather than polarized, indicating disagreement over priorities rather than over efficacy. These findings offer an initial expert map of an AI-disinformation landscape that is still rapidly forming.

cs.CY