S-1916-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend federal bankruptcy law (Title 11) to add genetic information to the category of protected personally identifiable information. It would prohibit a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession from selling, leasing, or otherwise transferring genetic data unless every affected person — including people who are not parties to the bankruptcy case — has given written consent after the case began. It would also require that any unsold genetic information be permanently deleted using court-approved methods, such as those outlined in federal data sanitization standards (NIST Special Publication 800-88).
Who benefits
Consumers who have submitted DNA samples to direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies (such as ancestry or health testing services), estimated in the tens of millions. Relatives of those consumers whose genetic information may be derivable from a family member's sample. Privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations. Competing genetic testing companies that did not acquire a bankrupt competitor's customer database. Health insurers and employers who could face liability under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) if they received improperly transferred data.
Who is hurt
Creditors of bankrupt genetic testing companies, who would lose access to a potentially valuable asset (customer genetic databases) that could otherwise be sold to satisfy debts. Bankruptcy estates broadly, as the bill may reduce the pool of assets available for distribution. Acquirers or research institutions that might otherwise purchase genetic databases to advance medical or genealogical research. Attorneys and trustees who would face new procedural obligations and deletion requirements, increasing administrative costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that genetic data is uniquely sensitive — unlike a credit card number, a person's DNA cannot be changed, and its exposure creates permanent, irreversible privacy risks for both the individual and their biological relatives who never consented to testing. They point to the 2023 bankruptcy of 23andMe as a concrete example of the gap this bill addresses: millions of customers' genetic profiles were at risk of being sold to unknown third parties with no meaningful consent mechanism under existing law. They contend that extending GINA's protections into the bankruptcy context is a logical and necessary step to prevent genetic information from becoming a commodity in corporate liquidations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that categorically blocking the sale of genetic databases — even to well-regulated acquirers — removes a significant asset from bankruptcy estates, potentially harming creditors who are owed money and reducing the incentive for companies to invest in genetic research platforms. They contend that existing law, including GINA and FTC oversight, already provides tools to regulate how genetic data is used post-transfer, and that a blanket prohibition with an affirmative written-consent requirement from non-parties may be practically impossible to satisfy, effectively mandating deletion in all cases and foreclosing legitimate research or commercial uses that consumers might actually support.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to establish uniform bankruptcy laws under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (the Bankruptcy Clause) and to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, both of which support federal rules governing the transfer of data assets held by companies operating across state lines. No active constitutional tension area is directly implicated, though the deletion mandate and consent requirements could raise Due Process questions from creditors whose property interests in estate assets are effectively extinguished.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by writing new restrictions directly into the Bankruptcy Code; bankruptcy courts retain oversight by approving deletion methods and adjudicating consent disputes; creditors retain the right to challenge asset treatment through existing bankruptcy court procedures.
Historical precedent
The 2023 bankruptcy of 23andMe, which held genetic data on approximately 15 million customers, prompted congressional concern about the absence of protections for genetic data in bankruptcy proceedings and directly motivated this legislation.