Complaints flood in over faked ultrasound allegations

WA’s consumer watchdog is encouraging mothers who suspect they bought fake ultrasound images of their children to make official complaints so the issue can be fully investigated.

Dozens of mothers in the South West are questioning the authenticity of ultrasound images they had taken of their unborn children after matching their photographs with strangers online.

By yesterday 155 people had joined a “victims’ only” Facebook group and about 30 complaints had been lodged with Consumer Protection.

A South West business offering non-diagnostic and non-medical prenatal scans is at the centre of the complaints.

Packages for the service range from $107 for a “gender scan” to a $497 “amazing ultimate package” including two ultrasound sessions, still images, photos and a massage or facial.

The business operator faces significant penalties under the Australian Consumer Law, with a maximum penalty of more than $1 million if the allegations are true.

Eaton mother Emma Stacey said she initially had suspicions about the photographs of her ultrasound but was so happy with the pictures she put the doubts out of her mind.

“We had doubts because the photographs we received weren’t what we saw on the video on the day, ” she said.

“But we were so pleased to have such special photos that we didn’t question them.”

Natasha South said she paid $257 for prints of the ultrasound taken in 2012 but last week found her photographs on a blog.

“I found my picture by searching ‘18 weeks gestation 4D ultrasound’ on Google Images and the photo was on a woman’s blog, ” she said.

“The woman’s baby had died. That was the photo she gave me. I’ve had a photo of a dead baby on my wall thinking it was mine.”

Consumer Protection director of retail and services David Hillyard said anyone concerned about the photographs should get in contact.

It would take weeks to investigate the complaints.

“This is a new complaint and we have no idea about its veracity, ” Mr Hillyard said.

“We have to look at all the evidence to determine if we have sufficient evidence to support the allegations.”

The business owner’s mobile phone was yesterday turned off. Previous attempts to contact the business owner were unsuccessful.