Don’t Sell My DNA Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 22, 2025
Bottom line
The 'Don't Sell My DNA Act' creates robust new privacy safeguards for individuals' genetic data within the bankruptcy system, making it exceptionally difficult for such information to be sold or transferred without explicit, informed consent.
What it actually does
This bill amends the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) to significantly enhance the protection of genetic information during bankruptcy proceedings. It classifies genetic information as personally identifiable information, imposes strict consent requirements for its sale or lease, mandates prior written notice to affected individuals, and requires the secure deletion of any genetic information not explicitly transferred.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that genetic information is uniquely sensitive and personal, requiring the highest level of protection, especially in contexts like bankruptcy where assets might otherwise be sold without individual consent. They contend that this bill prevents the involuntary monetization of highly private data, safeguarding individuals from potential discrimination or misuse of their genetic blueprint.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill's stringent consent and notification requirements could create significant administrative burdens and costs for bankruptcy estates, potentially hindering the ability to maximize asset recovery for creditors. They may argue that if genetic data is a legitimate asset of a bankrupt entity, its sale should be permissible under reasonable safeguards, and the bill's provisions could be overly broad or impractical to implement for large datasets.
The bill is short and focused, making it accessible for a quick read, but its legal implications require careful consideration.
Section 2(a)(1)
Inclusion of Genetic Information in PII Definition
This provision amends Section 101(41A)(A) of Title 11, United States Code, to explicitly include 'genetic information' (as defined by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA) within the definition of 'personally identifiable information' (PII). This means genetic data will now be subject to the same, and in some cases, enhanced, protections afforded to other sensitive personal data in bankruptcy.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this inclusion is a necessary foundational step to ensure genetic information receives the appropriate level of legal protection, acknowledging its unique sensitivity and potential for misuse.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this definitional inclusion, as it aligns with broader trends in data privacy legislation.
Tradeoffs
This provision primarily clarifies and expands existing definitions without introducing significant new tensions, serving as a basis for subsequent, more restrictive provisions.
Section 2(a)(2)(A)
Strict Consent for Sale/Lease of Genetic Information
This amendment to Section 363(b)(1)(B) of Title 11 prohibits the use, sale, or lease of genetic information by a bankruptcy estate unless 'all affected persons, including non-parties,' have affirmatively consented in writing after the commencement of the bankruptcy case. This sets an extremely high bar for transferring genetic data, requiring explicit, post-filing consent from every individual whose data is involved.
Section 2(a)(2)(B)
Actual Prior Written Notice Requirement
This section adds a new subsection (q) to Section 363, stipulating that any use, sale, or lease of genetic information is not final and valid unless 'each person whose genetic information would be subject to such use, sale, or lease is provided with actual prior written notice' of such action. This reinforces the consent requirement by ensuring individuals are explicitly informed before any transfer.
Section 2(a)(3)
Mandatory Deletion of Untransferred Genetic Information
This provision adds a new subsection (c) to Section 1107, requiring a trustee or debtor in possession to delete any genetic information that was part of the estate but was not sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of under Section 363. The deletion methods must be proscribed by the court and may include standards like NIST Special Publication 800-88, ensuring secure data destruction.
Section 2(b)
Retroactive and Immediate Effective Date
This section states that the amendments made by the Act take effect on the date of enactment and apply to any case under Title 11 that is pending, commenced, or reopened on or after that date. This means the new protections for genetic information will apply immediately to ongoing bankruptcy cases as well as future ones.
The bill defines 'genetic information' by reference to Section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff).
Section 2(a)(1)(B)(vii) and Section 2(a)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions.
Case for: Using an established definition from GINA ensures consistency with existing privacy law and avoids creating conflicting or ambiguous definitions for genetic information.
Case against: Requires readers to consult external statutes to fully grasp the bill's scope, potentially hindering immediate comprehension for those unfamiliar with GINA.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the broad and comprehensive definition of genetic information from GINA, which includes genetic tests, genetic services, and family medical history, is applied to bankruptcy proceedings.
The prohibition on sale/lease of genetic information requires consent from 'all affected persons, including non-parties'.
Section 2(a)(2)(A)
Why it matters:This phrasing is precise legal language, but its full implications for administrative burden might not be immediately obvious to a casual reader.
Case for: Ensures comprehensive protection for all individuals whose genetic data might be involved, regardless of their direct involvement in the bankruptcy case, upholding the principle that genetic data is inherently personal.
Case against: This broad requirement could make it practically impossible to obtain consent for large datasets, especially if 'non-parties' are difficult to identify or contact, potentially leading to significant administrative hurdles and costs.
Estimated impact: Could effectively prevent the sale of large genetic datasets by bankrupt entities due to the logistical impossibility of obtaining universal consent, impacting potential asset recovery.