By Richard Handford

A new survey that revealed mobile app stores are well stocked with dubious claims and unlikely treatments should come as a surprise to no-one. The New England Center for Investigative Reporting examined 1,500 paid-for mobile apps of which about 20 percent claimed to treat or cure medical conditions. Of these 331 apps, about 43 percent relied on the sound from their smartphone for treatment, while others relied on the handset screen’s light or even the phone’s vibration for treatment.

The report, which appeared in The Washington Post, pointed out that none of these apps could possibly treat the ailments they claimed to cure. Some of the claims made (how the light from an iPhone screen can treat acne, for instance) have almost entered popular mythology and no longer raise many eyebrows. What’s more surprising is the lack of outcry from the mobile health industry itself that such apps exist. There should be.

It’s true that the Federal Trade Commission has acted against two acne-cure apps, shutting them down and fining the developers behind them but other, long anticipated, regulation for health apps has failed to arrive.

The US Federal and Drug Administration (FDA) published draft guidance on regulating mobile medical apps in July last year. A final publication was expected a long time ago but has still not appeared. Now, it’s possible many dodgy health apps would fly under the radar of any FDA regulation which judging from last year’s draft is more concerned with regulating the collection of data from remote monitoring services. Fair enough. That is a subject worthy of regulation. But so are the wonky claims made in the App Store or on Google Play.

The FDA proposal has become stuck in the middle of political wrangling, according to several reports. Its progress has been stymied by opponents claiming that regulation from such a stodgy agency would slowdown the pace of innovation in the apps market. The deadlock itself of course becomes another form of bureaucracy, as bad as the one the opponents critique. They need to get on and make a decision.

Exaggerated claims in app stores can damage the grassroots of health apps by alienating users’ first experience of mobile health. Some of the claims might feel like the miracle cures made by a travelling medicine show but that doesn’t mean they don’t carry the risk of having a corrosive effect on public confidence.

It’s true that other regulatory initiatives are in the pipeline from the private sector. Back in July, health app store Happtique published a draft set of standards to certify medical, health and fitness apps with the aim of reassuring patients but also crucially to provide guidance to doctors who might want to prescribe apps.

I interviewed Happtique’s CEO Ben Chodor and SVP of new business initiatives Barbara Green about the project a few months ago. Incidentally, at the time Green estimated that the FDA regulations would cover only about 20 percent of apps on the market, leaving 80 percent unattended and potentially part of Happtique’s remit. That sounds like a big opportunity. They should take advantage of it now.

The editorial views expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and will not necessarily reflect the views of the GSMA, its Members or Associate Members.