AG reminds NH residents of rights in 23andMe bankruptcy filing
23andMe, a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company that collects and analyzes individuals' genetic data, filed for bankruptcy protection in March.
Attorney General John Formella said the company failed to safeguard the information of its customers and exposed them to significant harm.
'This negligence not only damaged the company's reputation but also violated the trust of those who entrusted their personal data to the company,' Formlla said in a news release.
The office is reminding New Hampshire residents of their rights under the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act. New Hampshire consumers have the right to access, obtain, correct, and delete personal data collected about them. Additionally, consumers have the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for the purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and certain types of profiling, according to the news release.
'Despite the bankruptcy filing, both 23andMe and any potential buyers remain responsible for protecting consumer data," Formella said. 'Additionally, consumers can proactively protect their data by deleting their genetic data, requesting the destruction of their test sample, and revoking authorization for 23andMe to share their data with third-party researchers.'
Consumers can delete their genetic data, request destruction of their test sample, and revoke permission for their data to be used for research through their 23andMe 'Account Settings' page.
23andMe's privacy notice can be found at this link: https://www.23andme.com/legal/privacy/. Consumers who need assistance may contact the New Hampshire Department of Justice, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau at DOJ-CPB@doj.nh.gov or 1-888-468-4454.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Court nixes leaving medical debt off credit reports
A federal judge in Texas vacated a Biden-era rule that removed medical debt from consumers' credit reports, agreeing with Trump administration and credit industry arguments that the policy exceeded regulators' authority. Why it matters: The rule, finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in January, would have wiped an estimated $49 billion from some 15 million Americans' credit reports and prevented lenders from using medical information in their decisions. Under the Trump administration, the CFPB reversed its position and joined credit reporting groups in challenging the rule, which was due to take effect at the end of July. Driving the news: U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan, a Trump appointee, ruled on Friday that the policy exceeded the CFPB's authority because it essentially rewrote the Fair Credit Reporting Act. State laws that prohibit credit reporting agencies from including coded medical information on reports are preempted by the federal act, Jordan wrote. Zoom in: Leading credit reporting agencies like Experian, Equifax, and Transunion had argued the Biden rule could have given lenders an inaccurate and incomplete picture when making loans. "Information about unpaid medical debts is an important element in assessing a consumer's ability to pay. This is the right outcome for protecting the integrity of the system," Dan Smith, president and CEO of the Consumer Data Industry Association, said in a statement. Major reporting agencies in 2022 voluntarily agreed to take certain medical debts off the reports, including those under $500. Because the administration is not defending the Biden rule, prospects for an appeal are uncertain. Medical debt is closely linked to Americans' broader economic concerns, with about 1 in 12 U.S. adults having unpaid medical bills of at least $250, according to the Peterson Center on Healthcare and KFF. Consumer groups say private equity's expanding role in billing, tracking and collecting payments is exacerbating the problem. The American Medical Association has argued that medical debt isn't an accurate barometer of people's ability to repay other loans, because most bills are a one-time or short-term expense from a hospital stay or accident. The Biden administration rule was part of a response that also included approving a North Carolina plan that gave hospitals in the state extra Medicaid funds if they forgave the medical debt of about 2 million residents.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Most workers want major change in how they get paid
At some point in your working life, you probably had a job where you got paid by the hour and collected a paycheck every other week. Maybe you still do. The bi-weekly pay structure is how millions of Americans get paid, yet this structure is a huge stressor for lots of people. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter With a paycheck always a few days or weeks ahead, one unexpected expense, like a car repair or a medical bill, can mean an overdraft at the bank or a massive credit card bill that is hard to repay. The bi-weekly pay structure is also one reason companies like Dollar Loan Center, MoneyMutual, and Advance America - businesses that offer short-term "paycheck" loans - have thrived over the years, even though they frequently face accusations of predatory lending practices. Now, a new study reveals insight that might make employers reconsider how they manage this part of their business. Image source: Shutterstock The current pay structure has hidden consequences. Workers must manage bill due dates and budget for food, rent, phone, internet, etc., all while wondering whether their next check will cover it. For hourly workers who don't have much savings, the cycle can create a frenzy of short-term financial triage. The constant financial juggling can take a toll on mental health, straining relationships and reducing productivity at work - all of which is bad for employers. Related: CEO of X resigns unexpectedly amid reports of Elon Musk problems In a recent Talker Research-commissioned survey, conducted May 13-21, 2025, among 2,000 U.S. hourly workers, including 1,000 who work in retail, nearly 39% reported that living paycheck to paycheck with a consistent income would be an upgrade compared to their current financial situation - and 44% had recently overdrafted their account. "For a long time, 'living paycheck to paycheck' was considered to be the lowest tier of financial wellness," a Talker Research spokesperson told TheStreet. "In this tier, people aren't able to put their money into savings or level up financially because all their money is going toward immediate needs like rent and groceries. But now, the data shows that many aren't even able to live paycheck to paycheck, slipping into an even lower tier of financial wellness." The survey also found: 38% of hourly workers have less than $1,000 in savings.19% of hourly workers took out loans in the past year to get through the pay cycle.34% of hourly workers rely on two or more jobs to stay resort to extreme measures - selling personal property or even dumpster diving - to survive, according to the survey. This data suggests that current pay structures are both inconvenient and insufficient. The solution may lie in on-demand pay, also known as "earned wage access" (EWA), where workers can access a portion of their earned wages before designated paydays. Of course, there are dozens of companies competing for employers' attention in this sector. DailyPay, Payactiv, Earnin, Branch, ZayZoon, and Wagestream are just a few of the EWA companies that have popped up in the last few years. The survey found that 78% of workers believe having this option would stabilize their finances. Related: This Chapter 11 bankruptcy hits some older Americans hard Among those already receiving on-demand wages, results are promising, per Talker Research: 22% of hourly workers used their wages for groceries and essentials;20% of hourly workers avoided late or missed bill payments; and15% of hourly workers reported lower financial stress. These sorts of changes could also benefit employers. Since financial stress correlates with mental strain, absenteeism, and lower productivity, employers who rethink paydays could be rewarded with a stronger workforce. In a tight labor market, anything that makes it easier to attract and retain talent is a benefit. Related: Levi's makes harsh decision on workers amid alarming retail trend The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Debanking innocent Americans should be illegal
Republican and Democratic leaders agree: Closing the bank accounts of Americans for no apparent reason is wrong. In recent years, major banks have begun the quiet, calculated and often callous closing of bank accounts belonging to honest, law-abiding Americans — typically without warning, cause or recourse. The practice is called debanking. And, to put it plainly, it just ain't right. According to members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Bank of America 'was the subject of 988 improper closure complaints and 584 improper account denial complaints.' JPMorgan Chase 'was the subject of 1,423 improper closure complaints and 443 improper account denial complaints,' and in 2021, Chase closed the account of retired former National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn's nonprofit, citing 'reputational risk.' Wells Fargo 'was the subject of 1,053 improper closure complaints and 350 improper account denial complaints'; it has faced allegations of closing long-standing customer accounts in 'high-risk' categories, like firearms dealers. Citigroup 'was the subject of 742 improper closure complaints and 96 improper account denial complaints,' including closing personal and business accounts of Armenian Americans. Most people are unaware of this practice until it touches them directly. Bank failures and employee embezzlements get far more attention from the media and policymakers. But to those affected, debanking is as devastating as being caught in a bank robbery crossfire — and the consequences can be permanent. To put things in context, we are not talking about fraudsters, drug lords or terror financiers. Debanking is being used against men and women whose only crime is running a small business, engaging in lawful commerce or having views or associations that run counter to traditional orthodoxy, such as adult content creators. Some are foreign nationals. Others are part of religious nonprofits. Some are just on the conservative side of the political spectrum. It has been happening to regular people — people like the owner of a barbershop in a historically Black neighborhood who manages an informal savings club. To his neighbors, the owner is a lifeline. But to the bank, he is a suspicious actor whose account gets frozen after depositing a large sum of money. There's no warning and no conversation — just an ATM terminal denying him access to his own funds. Or it could be a cybersecurity expert whose firm defends against hackers and cybercriminals. Because she interacts with cyberthreats, the bank froze her account, assuming she was the criminal. Maybe it's the owner of a bakery whose teenage son sells inert replicas of firearms online as collectibles. Because of his hobby, the bank closed down the mother's account. Perhaps the next victim is a retired Marine and Civil War re-enactor who was told his bank account was closed because of his 'military paraphernalia.' These are not anomalies. They are becoming more commonplace as banks are increasingly guided — or misguided — by the concept of reputational risk, driven by the fear of being associated with certain businesses like adult entertainment, cannabis, firearms, crypto or fringe political groups. Understandably, no bank wants to be grilled by a hostile Senate committee or slapped with a billion-dollar fine for missing a bad actor. Nor do they want to be accused of helping to finance terrorism or violent organizations. So they overreach. To avoid risk, they 'de-risk' certain people, not based on their behavior but on categories and algorithms. This is not compliance. It is digital profiling. Earlier this year, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), introduced the Financial Integrity and Regulation Management Act, which expressly prohibits federal regulators from using 'reputational risk' as a justification for examining or penalizing banks. In rare bipartisan agreement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also highlighted thousands of complaints collected in recent years from people who could not open accounts or had them abruptly closed. 'Big banks are relying on black-box algorithms and middlemen companies, and shutting down accounts without doing careful due diligence,' she said, citing Muslims, cannabis businesses and recently incarcerated people as victims. Beyond the personal harm, the societal impact of debanking is enormous. In a digital economy, it widens the gap between the unbanked and the rest of the world, and forces good people into underground economies that cut them off from full economic participation. Banks are meant to be neutral custodians of commerce, not referees of righteousness. To be sure, banks have a duty to fight illicit finance. But that duty should not include disenfranchising individuals based on vague reputational concerns. Federal watchdogs should clarify what 'reputational risk' means, and there must be much more transparency. Congress should also encourage banks to practice diligent risk analysis, not blanket exclusion. Regulators should reward, not penalize, banks that create culturally competent, innovation-friendly frameworks. Every American deserves to know why their financial life has been upended. Vague form letters are not acceptable. A bank should not be allowed to destroy someone's livelihood without a process for redress. Reasons must be specific, reviewable and appealable. Most Americans who have had their accounts closed are not money launderers, cybercriminals, militia leaders or threats to national security. They are citizens. Taxpayers. Workers. Innovators. Parents. Patriots. They are being punished not for what they've done, but for how they are perceived. Without question, banks must guard against criminality. But they should do so with discernment, discretion and decency. Otherwise, they are not protecting consumers. They are prosecuting them. And in America, that just ain't right. Adonis Hoffman writes on business law and policy. He served in senior legal roles at the FCC and in the U.S. House of Representatives.
