This bill amends Title 11 of the U.S. Code to treat genetic information as a specially protected category of personally identifiable information in bankruptcy. It bars court approval of any use, sale, or lease of genetic information from the bankruptcy estate unless every affected person has affirmatively consented in writing after the case begins, requires actual prior written notice to those persons, and directs trustees or debtors in possession to delete any genetic information in the estate that is not sold or transferred.
The change shifts how trustees, creditors, purchasers, and consumer‑genomics firms handle estate assets that include genetic data or DNA‑derived records. It prioritizes individual privacy over the unrestricted monetization of data in bankruptcy, which could reduce recoverable value from estates, create new operational obligations for trustees and counsel, and raise technical and legal implementation questions (for example, how to delete biological samples versus digital files).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 11 U.S.C. to (1) add genetic information to the statutory definition of personally identifiable information, (2) prohibit approval of sales/leases/uses of genetic information absent written, post‑petition consent from all affected persons, (3) require actual prior written notice to those persons, and (4) require trustees or debtors in possession to delete any unsold genetic information using court‑prescribed methods.
Who It Affects
Directly affects bankruptcy trustees, debtors in possession, creditors and potential purchasers of estate data assets (including consumer genomics companies and data brokers), individuals whose genetic information is held by a debtor, and bankruptcy courts asked to approve asset dispositions or supervise data deletion.
Why It Matters
The bill interrupts a growing revenue stream—sales of personal and genetic data from distressed firms—by elevating individual privacy in bankruptcy proceedings. That changes asset valuation, transaction timing, and due diligence for purchasers, and creates novel compliance duties for trustees and courts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Don’t Sell My DNA Act folds the definition of "genetic information" from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) into the bankruptcy code’s protections for personally identifiable information. That means genetic data—broadly defined under GINA to include genetic tests and family medical history—receives special status when it sits in a bankruptcy estate.
When a debtor’s estate contains genetic information, the bill prevents a trustee or debtor from getting court approval to use, sell, or lease that information unless every person whose genetic information would be affected has given affirmative written consent after the bankruptcy case starts. The bill also requires that each such person receive actual prior written notice of the proposed use, sale, or lease.
These are procedural gating requirements: a sale cannot be approved without both notice and post‑petition written consent from all affected individuals.For genetic information that remains in the estate and is not sold, the bill adds an affirmative sanitation duty. Trustees and debtors in possession must delete that genetic information using methods the court prescribes; the statute expressly references NIST Special Publication 800‑88 as an example for media sanitization.
The deletion requirement applies to digital files and other estate property that consists of genetic information—though the statute is silent on how to treat physical biological samples.All amendments take effect on enactment and apply to cases pending on enactment as well as cases commenced or reopened afterward. Practically, that means active sales processes and asset inventories must be re‑reviewed for genetic data, and trustees will need to build notice and consent processes, allocate budget for data‑sanitization work, and flag potential losses in estate value where genetic data previously had market demand.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds "genetic information," as defined in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), to the bankruptcy code’s definition of personally identifiable information (11 U.S.C. 101(41A)(A)).
Section 363(b)(1)(B) is amended to bar approval of any use, sale, or lease of genetic information unless all affected persons, including non‑parties, have affirmatively consented in writing after the case commenced.
The bill creates a new requirement (new subsection 363(q)) that each person whose genetic information would be subject to a proposed use, sale, or lease must receive actual prior written notice of that transaction.
Section 1107 is amended to require trustees or debtors in possession to delete any genetic information that was estate property but was not sold, using court‑prescribed deletion methods (the statute cites NIST SP 800‑88 as an example).
The amendments take effect on enactment and explicitly apply to cases pending on enactment and to cases commenced or reopened on or after enactment, creating immediate retroactive application to open bankruptcies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds genetic information to protected personally identifiable information
This provision expands the statutory category of protected personally identifiable information to include genetic information by cross‑reference to GINA. Practically, that makes genetic data subject to the specific sale/lease controls and notice/deletion rules the bill places elsewhere in Title 11. The cross‑reference imports GINA’s definition wholesale; therefore, the scope includes not only test results but certain family medical information and may capture data held by healthcare providers, consumer genomic firms, insurers, and others.
Conditions court approval of transactions involving genetic information on post‑petition written consent
The change to §363(b)(1)(B) prevents courts from approving the use, sale, or lease of estate assets that include genetic information unless the court finds all affected persons affirmatively consented in writing after the case began. That shifts a previously creditor‑and‑value centric inquiry (whether sale complies with nonbankruptcy law and maximizes value) to a consent‑centered gate. Importantly, the text explicitly includes non‑parties among the persons whose consent is required, which expands the universe of stakeholders trustees must identify and contact during any asset sale or transfer.
Adds an express prior‑notice requirement for genetic information dispositions
Subsection (q) requires actual prior written notice to every person whose genetic information would be affected before a use, sale, or lease can be considered final and valid. "Actual" notice suggests the statute demands individualized delivery rather than constructive notice by publication, and it sits alongside the consent requirement as a procedural precondition to any disposition involving genetic data.
Mandates deletion of unsold genetic information by trustee or debtor in possession
This provision requires the party in control of the estate (trustee or debtor in possession) to delete genetic information that remains property of the estate and is not transferred. The court prescribes deletion methods and may rely on technical standards such as NIST SP 800‑88. The provision creates a positive duty rather than a permissive option and thus allocates operational responsibility (and cost) to estate fiduciaries.
Immediate effect and retroactive application to pending and reopened cases
The statute takes effect upon enactment and applies to cases pending at that time as well as cases commenced or reopened later. That means trustees in active bankruptcies must review ongoing sales and inventories against the new rules immediately, not only for future cases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals whose genetic data appears in estates: They gain statutory protections—individualized notice, a right to withhold post‑petition written consent, and an expectation that unsold genetic data be deleted—reducing the likelihood their DNA or derived information is monetized through bankruptcy sales.
- Privacy advocates and downstream consumers: The bill limits secondary markets for genetic data arising from bankrupt entities, which reduces potential future exposures and unwanted data sharing.
- Family members and genetic relatives: Because GINA’s definition can include family medical history and tests of relatives, the provision gives related individuals added control where their genetic information could otherwise be implicated in sales of an estate’s records.
Who Bears the Cost
- Bankruptcy trustees and debtors in possession: They must build processes for identifying genetic information, provide individual notice, secure written consents, and perform deletion using court‑approved methods—activities that consume time, legal fees, and technical resources.
- Creditors and purchasers of data assets: Buyers will face reduced availability of genetic datasets in bankruptcy sales, extended due diligence timelines, and a higher risk that a sale will be blocked if consent from affected persons cannot be obtained.
- Debtors (estate value): Estates that previously monetized genetic or health‑related data will likely see decreased recoverable value, which could reduce distributions to creditors.
- Bankruptcy courts and counsel: Courts will field new factual disputes about who qualifies as an "affected person," sufficiency of notice and consent, proper deletion methods, and requests for exceptions—burdens that translate to more contested hearings and legal complexity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is privacy versus value: Congress aims to protect individuals by preventing the sale of genetic information in bankruptcy, but doing so constrains trustees’ ability to monetize estate assets and forces courts and fiduciaries to grapple with difficult, costly identification, notice, consent, and deletion tasks—especially when genetic data include biological samples that cannot be sanitized using standard media‑wiping guidance.
The bill raises several practical and legal implementation questions the statute does not resolve. First, the statutory cross‑reference to GINA imports a broad definition of genetic information but provides no rules for identifying "affected persons." Genetic data in an estate can implicate many people—test subjects, biological relatives, or individuals referenced in family medical histories—yet the statute does not define the scope or method for locating and notifying them.
That creates obvious operational headaches where contact information is incomplete or where consent must be gathered from dozens or hundreds of people.
Second, the deletion mandate mixes digital‑data sanitization standards (NIST SP 800‑88) with a category—"genetic information"—that may include physical biological samples. NIST guidance concerns electronic media; it does not describe how to "delete" blood, saliva, or tissue samples, or how to manage downstream copies of sequence data sold to third parties.
The statute leaves courts to prescribe methods, but absent specific standards, trustees will confront uncertain litigation risk about sufficiency of deletion and chain‑of‑custody questions. Lastly, the bill creates a tension between the trustee’s core fiduciary duty to maximize estate value and the new privacy constraints.
If genetic data represent meaningful economic value, the inability to sell without broad post‑petition consent will depress recoveries; conversely, allowing sales without robust consent would undercut the statute’s protective purpose. The bill also omits explicit enforcement mechanisms or penalties, relying on bankruptcy court oversight to police compliance and resolve disputes—an approach that may produce uneven outcomes across districts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.