Federal Judge Advances Genetic Privacy Lawsuit Over DNA Database Access

A federal judge in San Diego issued a ruling allowing portions of a class action lawsuit to move forward against a genealogical research site operator and a multinational company. Ten named plaintiffs from Alaska, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon brought the lawsuit, claiming their DNA profiles were shared with third parties without their permission.

U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. partially denied a motion to dismiss filed by Verogen Inc. and Qiagen NV, a European company that acquired GEDmatch.com in 2023. While certain claims regarding the company’s sale were dismissed, the judge ruled that allegations concerning law enforcement access and website tracking tools can proceed toward trial.

Law Enforcement Access and Website Tracking Allowed to Proceed

The judge allowed plaintiffs to advance claims regarding a technical loophole in the GEDmatch PRO platform. According to the lawsuit, this loophole allowed law enforcement actors to bypass user opt-out settings and compare profiles against users who specifically restricted such access. Judge Simmons noted that unauthorized genetic profile access by law enforcement presents a substantial privacy invasion.

Additionally, the court permitted claims involving Meta’s tracking pixel to move forward. Plaintiffs alleged that Verogen installed the pixel on GEDmatch.com in 2020 to capture page views and certain DNA kit upload events, transmitting user activity and Facebook ID numbers to Meta. The judge limited these specific claims to users who uploaded their DNA after the pixel was incorporated.

Acquisition Claims Dismissed With Leave to Amend

The court dismissed claims asserting that Verogen’s 2023 sale to Qiagen violated privacy through post-acquisition commercial endeavors. Judge Simmons found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently connect Qiagen’s acquisition to a prohibited disclosure or retention of individual genetic information, nor did the complaint show that the acquisition agreement mandated prohibited disclosures.

However, the judge granted permission for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to address and fix the shortcomings found in the dismissed claims. Defense attorneys had argued during a hearing that user data management never changed after the sale and that clients agreed to terms and conditions mentioning potential corporate sales.

What This Means for Everyday Users

This ongoing legal battle highlights the developing legal framework governing genetic information under state laws in places like Alaska, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon. Consumers who utilize genealogical websites and have strict privacy preferences should review platform settings carefully to understand how their data might be accessed or shared. The plaintiffs rely on state laws that prohibit collecting, disclosing, or using genetic data without explicit consent.

If you have uploaded genetic data to online genealogy platforms and are concerned about how third parties or law enforcement may access your profile, consulting with a qualified attorney can help you understand your rights under developing state genetic privacy laws.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 1, 2026.