Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Genetic Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee seeks conference with House over H.639’s 60‑day "cure" period for genetic-data privacy
Summary
During a meeting of the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee, members debated House edits to H.639 that narrow which violations are subject to a 60‑day cure period; the Senate chair said she will request a committee of conference after members disagreed on whether sales or disclosures of genetic data can ever be "cured."
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee debated whether to concur with House amendments to H.639, a bill on genetic-data privacy, centering on a 60‑day "cure" period in the enforcement section and whether certain violations (notably sale or broad sharing of genetic data) are ever "curable."
Committee staff summarized the House amendment and said the House narrowly limits the cure remedy to certain procedural or less-harmful failures. Staff told the committee that omissions such as failing to provide a required privacy policy (identified in the bill as a procedural violation) would be curable: a consumer could notify a company and the company would have 60 days to correct that omission. By contrast, staff said the House treats violations that implicate separate, express‑consent requirements — including collection, use or disclosure consents spelled out in the bill — as not curable, reasoning that once genetic data is shared or sold it cannot realistically be recovered.
Representative Michael Hartoff, identified in committee as the House chair for commerce-related matters, urged caution about applying a cure period to sales or broad disclosures of genetic data, saying, "once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't put it back in," and arguing that those harms are effectively irreversible and should not be deferred by a cure process.
Other senators and committee members pressed the practical value of a limited cure window. Several members said a short cure period could allow companies to investigate claims, remove targeted advertising derived from genetic data, or delete improperly shared data from internal systems without immediate litigation. Staff cited examples the House regards as curable: failure to provide a privacy policy, removal of prohibited targeted marketing derived from genetic data, and certain discrimination/pricing differences tied to consent. The House position, as explained to the Senate, is that express‑consent failures (for example, separate consent requirements within subsection 2 of section 2421) are not appropriately addressed by a cure remedy.
The committee discussed tradeoffs: without a cure period alleged violations may go directly to court, increasing litigation costs for both parties; with a cure period consumers could be delayed in filing suit while companies respond. Members asked staff to collect evidentiary examples showing circumstances in which a cure period would or would not remedy the harm.
After discussion, the Senate chair announced she would request a committee of conference with the House to reconcile the disagreement over which violations should be curable under H.639 and invited senators to serve on that conference committee. The chair closed the discussion with plans to assemble examples and experts to inform the conference process.
Next steps: the committee will seek a committee of conference to negotiate the enforcement language in H.639; staff was asked to gather examples and evidence about curable vs. incurable harms for the conference deliberations.
