23andMe To Lay Off 40% of Its Workforce, Discontinue All Therapy Programs (bbc.com) 72
The genetic testing company 23andMe announced it will cut 40% of its workforce, or 200 jobs, and halt the work on therapies it was developing. As the BBC notes, the company is fighting for survival after hackers gained access to personal information of millions of its users, causing the stock to crater by more than 70%. All seven of its independent directors also resigned in September, following a protracted negotiation with founder and Chief Executive Anne Wojcicki over her plan to take the company private. The BBC reports: On Tuesday, the company warned investors of "substantial doubt" about its ability to continue operating, as it reported that revenue had fallen to $44 million between July and September compared to $50 million in the same period last year. Losses fell to $59 million from $75 million. The job cuts are expected to lead to one-off costs of $12 million, including severance pay, for the plan that will result in savings of $35 million. "We are taking these difficult but necessary actions as we restructure 23andMe and focus on the long-term success of our core consumer business and research partnerships," Ms Wojcicki said.
The company also said it is considering what to do with the therapies it had in development, including licensing or selling them. 23andMe is a giant of the growing ancestor-tracing industry. It offers genetic testing from DNA, with ancestry breakdown and personalised health insights. Its customers include famous names, from rapper Snoop Dogg to multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett. The company was valued at roughly $3.5 billion when it listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange in 2021 and its share price peaked at $17.65. But they have since tumbled and are currently trading at less than $5.
The company also said it is considering what to do with the therapies it had in development, including licensing or selling them. 23andMe is a giant of the growing ancestor-tracing industry. It offers genetic testing from DNA, with ancestry breakdown and personalised health insights. Its customers include famous names, from rapper Snoop Dogg to multi-billionaire investor Warren Buffett. The company was valued at roughly $3.5 billion when it listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange in 2021 and its share price peaked at $17.65. But they have since tumbled and are currently trading at less than $5.
Therapy? (Score:1)
Therapies? I thought 23andMe's only service was taking customer DNA and providing it to health insurance companies and law enforcement agencies. r/TodayILearned
Re: (Score:2)
23ME-00610: A Phase 1/2a therapeutic antibody designed to restore the immune system's ability to kill cancer cells by blocking the immune checkpoint CD200R1.
23ME-01473: A Phase 1 therapeutic antibody targeting ULBP6, which can be expressed and secreted by tumor cells to suppress immune activity.
https://blog.23andme.com/artic... [23andme.com]
PII / HIPPA / Medical data (Score:2)
Is any of the DNA data covered under US PII / HIPPA or other medical data privacy laws?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even when enforced and adhered to properly, HIPAA doesn't provide the kind of protection most people think it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Is any of the DNA data covered under US PII / HIPPA or other medical data privacy laws?
When I sent my DNA to 23andMe, I had to click on a lot of checkboxes giving them permission to do stuff.
I didn't actually read any of it, but it's very likely I signed away all my rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is their service.
Their business model was charging people to have their DNA resold to insurance companies.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence that I'm aware of that 23&Me provides data to insurance companies, in violation of federal law. Do you have such evidence?
Re: (Score:1)
In their own words:
https://customercare.23andme.c... [23andme.com])
* Service providers
What's a service provider, exactly, and what prevents your data going any further?
* Commonly owned entities, affiliates, and change of ownership
Affiliates, huh? Such as... business partners?
* Third parties related to law, harm, and the public interest
Public interest third parties? Ok, that's sufficiently vague to drive a fleet of trucks through.
And these are just their empty promises off their own privacy page. They could follow this
Re: (Score:2)
Far as I know, there's no evidence 23&Me provides data to insurance companies. Do you have such evidence?
Delete DNA if they go Under? (Score:2)
How do I do that? Because someone could buy them out and they could sell all your DNA info on the open market!
Re: (Score:3)
You can't. You gave it to them. It is theirs now.
The data is one of their few assets. It will belong to whomever buys it in the bankruptcy auction.
You didn't think that data about you was your property did you? It is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a chance to complete the reproductive act!
Re: (Score:2)
23&Me collect a tiny number of markers, most of which are heavily studied. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much.
However, if you're nervous, there are sites that will make you a stakeholder in your DNA data, thus obligating companies using it to share in profits gained from using it.
How many times? (Score:5, Funny)
I keep hearing about them cutting this percent of employees every few months .. where's Zeno in all of this. How soon before it's literally 23 people and me (the customer).
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be 23 and you, it'll be 23 and the bankruptcy attorney.
What worries me is (Score:2)
Getting your DNA sequenced by anything other than a doctor covered by HIPAA is bad news. Maybe a distant relative does something and now you've got the cops knocking on your door and pulling you in trying to get a confession out of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a distant relative does something and now you've got the cops knocking on your door and pulling you in trying to get a confession out of you.
A distant relative won't show up as a perfect match and if you have a haflway decent defense attorney they'll ask for comprehensive testing and sue the heck out of the police.Which is more likely, that a relative did a major crime or that major crime happens to a relative? Let's see, the typical major criminal has more than one victim .. therefore the strategy that will keep you safest is for the cops to have this data and use it responsibly. Just have access to this data under the control of an independent
Re: (Score:2)
What's going to happen to all that data? It'll be sold. Nothing that hasn't already happened to it.
Re: (Score:2)
That explains the layoffs. They ran out of people stupid enough to send their DNA in.
Re: (Score:2)
Police are not permitted to use that data without your consent. That doesn't change if they were to decide to buy the company's data.
Re: (Score:1)
So we aren't using DNA to figure out everything from old crimes to new ones, because no perp is obviously going to allow usage of his or her data?
Wow, how does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Police do use DNA, but they don't get it from sites like 23andMe, Ancestry, or FTDNA. They have their own sources and their own labs. For example, states require newborns to undergo DNA screening tests, and police do have access to these. https://www.aclu.org/news/priv... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That wasn't your claim. You claim was:
>Police are not permitted to use that data without your consent.
When as you just admitted, they obviously are.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry I didn't fully qualify my statement. The context here is 23andMe. Police are not permitted to use your DNA data from popular genealogy DNA testing sites like 23andMe, Ancestry, and FTDNA, without your consent. There is no such restriction for state-mandated infant screening tests.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course they are. That's what courts are for.
And we have a long history of company buying out this sort of mass mined data, and then selling the ease of access to that data to police on top of that.
Re: (Score:2)
When a company buys another company, they can't just unilaterally violate agreements with customers just because they are new owners. Those agreements with customers still stand because they are between the customer and the company, not between the customer and the original owner. Those agreements are still binding under the law.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't matter what your civil contract between two parties says. Criminal law and criminal court can override it.
It's why you cannot in fact ask for a firstborn and expect it be honored in such a contract. There's precedent for this that goes back centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already true that if a court authorizes police to access to a person's DNA as collected by 23andMe and other labs, the company must comply with the court order. This is not new, it has been so since the beginning. This is what the 4th amendment specifies, that police require court authorization for search and seizure, based on probable cause. That is not what is at stake in a potential future sale of 23andMe.
A contract does not, and has never, provided absolute privacy. There's just no change in this r
Re: (Score:1)
And once you clue in that just because you have been granted a right to look at it doesn't mean it's going to be free, and police do have to pay a reasonable cost for looking up the data in the warrant, you understand that police do in fact have access to this data for a reasonable fee.
And they will retain it.
Oh and one last thing. If data goes on sale via bankruptcy, previous terms get tossed.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you are agreeing with me.
Yes, police do have to pay a reasonable fee for the data.
Yes, police can get that data with a court order based on probable cause.
No, police cannot pay a fee and get the data without a judge's approval based on probable cause.
These types of police access are unchanged by bankruptcy or sale of the company.
So what's your point exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
>No, police cannot pay a fee and get the data without a judge's approval based on probable cause.
This part is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is in black and white: https://www.23andme.com/law-en... [23andme.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. Irrelevant in case of bankruptcy sale.
Re: (Score:2)
The terms of a bankruptcy sale...have to be approved by a court. They can't just do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
And we have already established something about courts above, haven't we?
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim was that after the sale of the company, the new owners could do whatever they want with your data. No, they can't. They have to get their plans approved by a court. Claiming that the courts are corrupt, is an entirely different matter. If courts are corrupt, then all bets are off, sale or no sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would courts granting bankruptcy sale the right to maximize return to the debtors, the literal purpose of bankruptcy sale make it "corrupt"?
It's a legal norm that contractual agreements with bankrupt entity cease functioning once entity enters bankruptcy liquidation at the latest.
Re: (Score:2)
Bankruptcy is the grease that makes our economy work. Without it, businesses would be more reluctant to take risks, slowing innovation and speculative investment. That doesn't make it corrupt, it serves a very good and beneficial purpose.
It may be a legal norm that contractual agreements cease functioning in bankruptcy. But that doesn't mean that the courts allow *anything* to take the place of the contracts that were in place. Courts would be sensitive to the special nature of DNA privacy, and wouldn't be
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument in the end isn't that this is normative to the rules, but the opposite: that this is somehow very, very special thing that shouldn't be allowed because it's a very, very special thing.
I.e. you're arguing that this will be a massive exception to the rule. I suppose we will see if this is true. But I doubt it, considering previous acceptance of similar private information losing contractual protections in events of a bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say anything about what "should" be true. The reality is, DNA is a politically sensitive topic, and that fact will not permit it to be buried in the fine print. Reporters will jump all over that, and even judges are sensitive to press reports, at least to some degree.
"Massive exception" is overstating this. The entire purpose of bankruptcy court is to negotiate the details of the bankruptcy. The various parties come to the table and, under a judge's supervision, hash out terms. You can bet that at
Re: (Score:2)
And so, we arrive at the logical conclusion. That no, this is not protected. The only hope is that this will be interesting enough for media, who will pick it up in sufficient way, while remaining trustworthy enough for people to actually believe it, while issue actually mattering for enough people to care.
Hey, remember when all our clicks went to microsoft when windows 10 was forcibly pushed on us all? Remember how the massive media brouhaha raised massive popular resistance and how there's no keylogging a
Re: (Score:2)
"this is not protected"
This is not the same as the initial assertion, that "cops will buy the whole thing." It is protected, but like all protections, they are not absolute.
And if you're worried about your DNA falling into the hands of the police, it's too late, they already have access to either YOUR DNA, or someone related closely enough to you that they can use it to locate you, as they did the Golden State Killer, even though he had never submitted his DNA for testing by a consumer lab.
Your clicks still
Re: (Score:2)
>This is not the same as the initial assertion, that "cops will buy the whole thing."
That would be because initial assertion was an obvious hyperbole, as police doesn't buy the data, it buys access to data from whoever has it. Doesn't matter if it's Google or their local hospital. Data comes from those they request it from, and they pay for access to said data. The only questionable part is whether party who has the data will be willing and able to sell them access.
And as we have established here, we're
Re: (Score:2)
It's both implicitly and explicitly included, as I specifically outline "as we established HERE" (emphasis mine), which includes the point about bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
All that data? A miniscule fraction of the genome, of which only a small part relates to anything useful?
If you're worried, there are ways to become a stakeholder in your DNA, obligating companies that use it to pay you a percentage.
They weren't hacked (Score:4, Informative)
23andMe wasn't hacked in the traditional sense, their users were a victim of credential stuffing attacks. Do we say Meta is hacked every time a bad actor logs into someone else's account using leaked credentials? We don't. 23andMe isn't any different than a social media site, where users share information with other users. I have a 23andMe account and I share my information to people I am related to. One of those people was an idiot and used the same username and password as a site that experienced a data breach and therefor had their 23andMe account compromised as well. That's not on 23andMe, that's on the idiot who reuses credentials.