Connect with us

Published

on

Signage at 23andMe headquarters in Sunnyvale, California, U.S., on Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2021.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

DNA testing has become a valuable tool for hobbyists and novice genealogists. For some, learning they are the 10th cousin of Paul Revere or the 15th great nephew four times removed of the last King of Prussia is worth the perceived risk of sharing a DNA sample. But what happens when the company harvesting the DNA goes bankrupt? 

That was the question posed to millions of Americans last week when 23andMe, the company that popularized consumer genetic testing and had early backing from Google, filed for bankruptcy, leading to a wave of calls for Americans to delete their DNA from the company’s database.

While it’s not 100 percent clear if the “delete your DNA” calls were warranted, privacy experts are alarmed, and Americans who had taken the genetic test took the advice to heart.

According to data from online traffic analysis company Similarweb, on March 24, the day of the bankruptcy announcement, 23andMe received 1.5 million visits to its website, a 526% increase from one day prior. According to Similarweb, 376,000 visits were made to help pages specifically related to deleting data, and 30,000 were made to the customer care page for account closure. The next day, that figure rose to 1.7 million visits, and rraffic to the delete data help page about 480,000.

Margaret Hu, professor of law and director of the Digital Democracy Lab at William & Mary Law School, thinks Americans made the right move. “This development is a disaster for data privacy,” said Hu. In her view, the 23andMe bankruptcy should serve as a warning as to why the federal government needs strong data protection laws.

In some states, Hu noted, the government is taking an active role in counseling consumers. The California Attorney General’s Office is urging Californians to delete their data and have 23andMe destroy saliva samples. But Hu says that is not enough, and such guidance should be provided to all U.S. citizens.

The potential national security implications of 23andMe’s data falling into the wrong hands are not new. In fact, the Pentagon had previously warned military personnel that these DNA kits could pose a risk to national security.

Exposing DNA collected from consumers is not a new issue for 23andMe, either. In 2023, almost 7 million people who took the genetic test were already exposed in a major 23andMe data breach. The company signed an agreement that involved a $30 million settlement and a promise of three years’ worth of security monitoring.

But Hu says the bankruptcy does make the company, and its data, especially vulnerable now.

Drug research and genetic testing data

One of the things notable about the consumer mindset in the early years of the popularization of genetic testing was that a majority of users opted into sharing their DNA for research purposes, as much as 80% in the years when 23andMe was growing rapidly. Then, as the market for consumer sale of the popular DNA test kits reached saturation sooner than many expected, 23andMe focused more on research and development partnerships with drug companies as a way to diversify its revenue.

Currently, when 23andMe sells genetic data to other research companies, most is used at an aggregate level, as part of millions of data points being analyzed as a whole. The company also strips out identifying data from the genetic data, and no registration information (like a name or email) is included. Data researchers do need, such as date of birth, is stored separately from genetic data, and shared with randomly assigned IDs.

Hu is among the experts concerned these practices could change under 23andMe or any new buyer. “In a time of financial vulnerability, companies such as pharmaceutical companies might see an opportunity to exploit the research benefits of the genetic data,” Hu said, adding that they might try to renegotiate prior contracts to extract more data from the company. “Will the next company that buys 23andMe do that?,” Hu said of its privacy policies.

In recent days, 23andMe has said it will try to find a buyer who shares its privacy values.

23andMe did not respond to a request for comment.

Anne Wojcicki, 23andMe Co-Founder & CEO pushes the button, remotely ringing the NASDAQ opening bell at the headquarters of DNA tech company 23andMe in Sunnyvale, California, U.S., June 17, 2021.

Peter DaSilva | Reuters

Over the years since 23andMe’s founding in 2006, many customers were willing to send in a swab to learn more about their family history. Lansing, Michigan resident Elaine Brockhaus, 70, and her family were excited to learn more about their lineage when they submitted samples of their DNA to 23andMe. But with the company now teetering in bankruptcy and privacy experts concerned about what happens to the millions of people with DNA samples stored, Brockhaus says the whole thing has “caused a bit of a ruckus in my family.”  

“We enjoyed some aspects of 23&Me,” Brockhaus said. “They continually refined and updated our heritage as more people joined, and they were better able to pinpoint genetically related groups,” Brockhaus said. She was able to learn more about health risk factors that were present or not present in her past.

Now, her family has come full circle in the 23andMe experience: some members were initially reluctant to go along, and now, Brockhaus says, everyone has deleted their accounts.

A unique company collapse, but everyday cyber risks

But Brockhaus continues to view 23andMe within a larger consumer health market where the risks are not new, and health information is being shared in all sorts of environments where security issues could arise. “Anyone sending ColoGuard or receiving medical results through the mail is taking a risk of exposure,” Brockhaus said. “Our very identities can be stolen with a few keystrokes. Of course, this does not mean that we should throw up our hands and agree to be victims, but unless we want to dig holes out back and live in them we have to be vigilant, proactive, but not panicked,” she added.

Jon Clay, vice president of threat intelligence at cybersecurity firm Trend Micro, says consumers of 23andMe do need to view the bankruptcy as a threat. In any sale process, if the data is not transferred and guarded in the most secure manner possible, “it is at risk of being used by malicious actors for a number of nefarious purposes,” he said.

Clay thinks 23andMe’s data is incredibly valuable to cybercriminals — not just because it’s permanent and personally identifiable, but also because it can be exploited for identity theft, blackmail, or even medical fraud.

“Cybercriminals can use it to target consumers with convincing scams and social engineering tactics, such as fraudulently claiming someone is a blood relative to another person or to send deceptive messages about their potential health risks,” Clay said. “Organizations who go bankrupt should ensure the security and privacy of their customer’s data is critical, and any sharing or selling of data to others should not be done,” he added.

But other experts say the lesson of 23andMe is less about the company’s collapse and the threat to privacy that created than serving as a reminder about the everyday cyber hazards related to personal information.

“When people start talking about personal data, they forget where their data is already sitting,” says Rob Lee, chief of research and head of faculty at SANS Institute, which specializes in helping businesses with information security and cyber issues. Whether it’s sending a blood sample into a private lab or getting rid of a laptop to upgrade to a new one, “your digital footprints are being left out there for people to find,” Lee said. “People don’t understand the scope, so there is a larger discussion out there, specifically around where does data go?”

With DNA information, there are certain basic legal factors people should weigh before swabbing themselves and sending the sample in.

According to Lynn Sessions, an expert on healthcare privacy and digital assets and partner at the law firm BakerHostetler, the federal law that covers patient information privacy, HIPAA, does not apply to this situation, and 23andMe would not be considered a HIPAA-covered entity, or business associate of one. But there are state laws that apply to genetic information that would be in play, such as in California.

Meredith Schnur, a managing director and cybersecurity leader at insurance company Marsh, thinks the risk from 23andMe’s bankruptcy for people who sent in their swabs is relatively low. “It doesn’t cause any additional consternation or heartburn,” Schnur said. “I just don’t think it opens up any additional risk that doesn’t already exist,” she said, adding that many people’s information is “already out there.”

Last week, a 23andMe co-founder, Linda Avey, blasted the company’s leadership. “Without continued consumer-focused product development, and without governance, 23andMe lost its way, and society missed a key opportunity in furthering the idea of personalized health,” Avey wrote in a social media post. “There are many cautionary tales buried in the 23andMe story,” Avey said.

The bankruptcy itself is the issue that is now hard for consumers to ignore, and until the sale process is completed, the questions will remain.

“When you’re in bankruptcy, data privacy values are not what you’re really thinking about. You’re thinking about selling your company to the highest bidder,” Hu said. That highest bidder, Hu says might take the genetic data and consumer profile data and link them together when selling it to others.

And that initial sale which includes the DNA of millions of people may only be the first of many transactions.

“It might sell it off, piece by piece, indiscriminately. And the buyer of that data might be a foreign adversary,” Hu said. “That is why this is not just a data privacy disaster. It’s also a national security disaster.”

We don't know who could buy 23andMe data and how it could be used against us, says Theresa Payton

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla must pay portion of $329 million in damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

Published

on

By

Tesla must pay portion of 9 million in damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

A jury in Miami has determined that Tesla should be held partly liable for a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, and must compensate the family of the deceased and an injured survivor a portion of $329 million in damages.

Tesla’s payout is based on $129 million in compensatory damages, and $200 million in punitive damages against the company.

The jury determined Tesla should be held 33% responsible for the fatal crash. That means the automaker would be responsible for about $42.5 million in compensatory damages. In cases like these, punitive damages are typically capped at three times compensatory damages.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys told CNBC on Friday that because punitive damages were only assessed against Tesla, they expect the automaker to pay the full $200 million, bringing total payments to around $242.5 million.

Tesla said it plans to appeal the decision.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the jury to award damages based on $345 million in total damages. The trial in the Southern District of Florida started on July 14.

The suit centered around who shouldered the blame for the deadly crash in Key Largo, Florida. A Tesla owner named George McGee was driving his Model S electric sedan while using the company’s Enhanced Autopilot, a partially automated driving system.

While driving, McGee dropped his mobile phone that he was using and scrambled to pick it up. He said during the trial that he believed Enhanced Autopilot would brake if an obstacle was in the way. His Model S accelerated through an intersection at just over 60 miles per hour, hitting a nearby empty parked car and its owners, who were standing on the other side of their vehicle.

Naibel Benavides, who was 22, died on the scene from injuries sustained in the crash. Her body was discovered about 75 feet away from the point of impact. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, survived but suffered multiple broken bones, a traumatic brain injury and psychological effects.

“Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,” Brett Schreiber, counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an e-mailed statement on Friday. “Tesla’s lies turned our roads into test tracks for their fundamentally flawed technology, putting everyday Americans like Naibel Benavides and Dillon Angulo in harm’s way.”

Following the verdict, the plaintiffs’ families hugged each other and their lawyers, and Angulo was “visibly emotional” as he embraced his mother, according to NBC.

Here is Tesla’s response to CNBC:

“Today’s verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla’s and the entire industry’s efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology. We plan to appeal given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.

Even though this jury found that the driver was overwhelmingly responsible for this tragic accident in 2019, the evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator – which overrode Autopilot – as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road. To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash.

This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs’ lawyers blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.”

The verdict comes as Musk, Tesla’s CEO, is trying to persuade investors that his company can pivot into a leader in autonomous vehicles, and that its self-driving systems are safe enough to operate fleets of robotaxis on public roads in the U.S.

Tesla shares dipped 1.8% on Friday and are now down 25% for the year, the biggest drop among tech’s megacap companies.

The verdict could set a precedent for Autopilot-related suits against Tesla. About a dozen active cases are underway focused on similar claims involving incidents where Autopilot or Tesla’s FSD— Full Self-Driving (Supervised) — had been in use just before a fatal or injurious crash.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration initiated a probe in 2021 into possible safety defects in Tesla’s Autopilot systems. During the course of that investigation, Tesla made changes, including a number of over-the-air software updates.

The agency then opened a second probe, which is ongoing, evaluating whether Tesla’s “recall remedy” to resolve issues with the behavior of its Autopilot, especially around stationary first responder vehicles, had been effective.

The NHTSA has also warned Tesla that its social media posts may mislead drivers into thinking its cars are capable of functioning as robotaxis, even though owners manuals say the cars require hands-on steering and a driver attentive to steering and braking at all times.

A site that tracks Tesla-involved collisions, TeslaDeaths.com, has reported at least 58 deaths resulting from incidents where Tesla drivers had Autopilot engaged just before impact.

Read the jury’s verdict below.

Continue Reading

Technology

Crypto wobbles into August as Trump’s new tariffs trigger risk-off sentiment

Published

on

By

Crypto wobbles into August as Trump's new tariffs trigger risk-off sentiment

A screen showing the price of various cryptocurrencies against the US dollar displayed at a Crypto Panda cryptocurrency store in Hong Kong, China, on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025. 

Lam Yik | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The crypto market slid Friday after President Donald Trump unveiled his modified “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of countries.

The price of bitcoin showed relative strength, hovering at the flat line while ether, XRP and Binance Coin fell 2% each. Overnight, bitcoin dropped to a low of $114,110.73.

The descent triggered a wave of long liquidations, which forces traders to sell their assets at market price to settle their debts, pushing prices lower. Bitcoin saw $172 million in liquidations across centralized exchanges in the past 24 hours, according to CoinGlass, and ether saw $210 million.

Crypto-linked stocks suffered deeper losses. Coinbase led the way, down 15% following its disappointing second-quarter earnings report. Circle fell 4%, Galaxy Digital lost 2%, and ether treasury company Bitmine Immersion was down 8%. Bitcoin proxy MicroStrategy was down by 5%.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

hide content

Bitcoin falls below $115,000

The stock moves came amid a new wave of risk off sentiment after President Trump issued new tariffs ranging between 10% and 41%, triggering worries about increasing inflation and the Federal Reserve’s ability to cut interest rates. In periods of broad based derisking, crypto tends to get hit as investors pull out of the most speculative and volatile assets. Technical resilience and institutional demand for bitcoin and ether are helping support their prices.

“After running red hot in July, this is a healthy strategic cooldown. Markets aren’t reacting to a crisis, they’re responding to the lack of one,” said Ben Kurland, CEO at crypto research platform DYOR. “With no new macro catalyst on the horizon, capital is rotating out of speculative assets and into safer ground … it’s a calculated pause.”

Crypto is coming off a winning month but could soon hit the brakes amid the new macro uncertainty, and in a month usually characterized by lower trading volumes and increased volatility. Bitcoin gained 8% in July, according to Coin Metrics, while ether surged more than 49%.

Ether ETFs saw more than $5 billion in inflows in July alone (with just a single day of outflows of $1.8 million on July 2), bringing it’s total cumulative inflows to $9.64 to date. Bitcoin ETFs saw $114 million in outflows in the final trading session of July, bringing its monthly inflows to about $6 billion out of a cumulative $55 billion.

Don’t miss these cryptocurrency insights from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Technology

Google has dropped more than 50 DEI-related organizations from its funding list

Published

on

By

Google has dropped more than 50 DEI-related organizations from its funding list

Google CEO Sundar Pichai gestures to the crowd during Google’s annual I/O developers conference in Mountain View, California, on May 20, 2025.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Google has purged more than 50 organizations related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, from a list of organizations that the tech company provides funding to, according to a new report.

The company has removed a total of 214 groups from its funding list while adding 101, according to a new report from tech watchdog organization The Tech Transparency Project. The watchdog group cites the most recent public list of organizations that receive the most substantial contributions from Google’s U.S. Government Affairs and Public Policy team.

The largest category of purged groups were DEI-related, with a total of 58 groups removed from Google’s funding list, TTP found. The dropped groups had mission statements that included the words “diversity, “equity,” “inclusion,” or “race,” “activism,” and “women.” Those are also terms the Trump administration officials have reportedly told federal agencies to limit or avoid.

In response to the report, Google spokesperson José Castañeda told CNBC that the list reflects contributions made in 2024 and that it does not reflect all contributions made by other teams within the company.

“We contribute to hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that advocate for pro-innovation policies, and those groups change from year to year based on where our contributions will have the most impact,” Castañeda said in an email.

Organizations that were removed from Google’s list include the African American Community Service Agency, which seeks to “empower all Black and historically excluded communities”; the Latino Leadership Alliance, which is dedicated to “race equity affecting the Latino community”; and Enroot, which creates out-of-school experiences for immigrant kids. 

The organization funding purge is the latest to come as Google began backtracking some of its commitments to DEI over the last couple of years. That pull back came due to cost cutting to prioritize investments into artificial intelligence technology as well as the changing political and legal landscape amid increasing national anti-DEI policies.

Over the past decade, Silicon Valley and other industries used DEI programs to root out bias in hiring, promote fairness in the workplace and advance the careers of women and people of color — demographics that have historically been overlooked in the workplace.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action at colleges led to additional backlash against DEI programs in conservative circles.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order upon taking office in January to end the government’s DEI programs and directed federal agencies to combat what the administration considers “illegal” private-sector DEI mandates, policies and programs. Shortly after, Google’s Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that the company would end DEI-related hiring “aspirational goals” due to new federal requirements and Google’s categorization as a federal contractor.

Despite DEI becoming such a divisive term, many companies are continuing the work but using different language or rolling the efforts under less-charged terminology, like “learning” or “hiring.”

Even Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained the importance diversity plays in its workforce at an all-hands meeting in March.

“We’re a global company, we have users around the world, and we think the best way to serve them well is by having a workforce that represents that diversity,” Pichai said at the time.

One of the groups dropped from Google’s contributions list is the National Network to End Domestic Violence, which provides training, assistance, and public awareness campaigns on the issue of violence against women, the TTP report found. The group had been on Google’s list of funded organizations for at least nine years and continues to name the company as one of its corporate partners.

Google said it still gave $75,000 to the National Network to End Domestic Violence in 2024 but did not say why the group was removed from the public contributions list.

WATCH: Alphabet’s valuation remains highly attractive, says Evercore ISI’s Mark Mahaney

Alphabet's valuation remains highly attractive, says Evercore ISI's Mark Mahaney

Continue Reading

Trending