The Ancestry lawsuit docket of the past several years clusters into four distinct complaints: genetic privacy class actions tied to Blackstone’s $4.7 billion acquisition of the company in December 2020, a California suit over automatic subscription renewals, a California suit alleging misleading handling of DNA data, and right-of-publicity cases accusing Ancestry of using people’s names and photos in ads without consent. Outcomes have varied. Some were dismissed, some were pushed into private arbitration, and at least one has been cleared to move forward in federal court.
Genetic Privacy Suits After the Blackstone Deal
Blackstone closed its acquisition of Ancestry on December 4, 2020. Both companies said publicly that Blackstone would not access user DNA or family tree data and would not share it across its portfolio.1Blackstone. Blackstone Completes Acquisition of Ancestry2CBS News. Blackstone Private Equity Ancestry.com DNA Ancestry’s own privacy policy, however, said that personal information would be among the assets transferred in an acquisition.3Ancestry. Privacy Statement That clause became the hook for a series of class actions brought under Illinois’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), which requires written authorization before genetic information can be disclosed and carries statutory damages of $2,500 per negligent violation and $15,000 per intentional or reckless violation.4Illinois General Assembly. Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act
Bridges v. Blackstone
Carolyn Bridges and Raymond Cunningham sued Blackstone directly, arguing that taking control of Ancestry amounted to a “compelled disclosure” of their genetic identities because Ancestry paired test results with names, email addresses, and home addresses. The district court dismissed the case, noting that the data was reportedly anonymized and that an acquisition alone is not a compulsory disclosure under GIPA. On May 1, 2023, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that a change in corporate ownership does not, by itself, plausibly allege a compelled disclosure.5U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Bridges v. Blackstone, No. 22-2486
A.K. v. Ancestry.com DNA
In October 2021, a separate class action was filed in the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of a minor represented by his mother. A.K. v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC (No. 3:21-cv-01368) targeted Ancestry itself, alleging that the company disclosed its genetic database to Blackstone without written consent from Illinois residents. The proposed class covered all Illinois residents whose genetic information was disclosed in the deal.6ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Ancestry.com Violated Genetic Privacy Law
Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA
Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC is the most procedurally important case in the group. It was filed on behalf of minors whose parents or guardians activated DNA kits between 2016 and 2019, with the same core allegation: that Ancestry disclosed genetic test results and personal information to Blackstone without written authorization.7FindLaw. Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC
Ancestry tried to move the case into arbitration, pointing to the binding arbitration clause and class action waiver in its Terms and Conditions, which the guardians had accepted when they created accounts. The Southern District of Illinois said no. On February 15, 2024, a Seventh Circuit panel affirmed, in an opinion by Judge Brennan joined by Judges Flaum and Easterbrook. The court held that:8vLex. Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, 93 F.4th 1014
- Illinois law carries a strong presumption against binding a non-signatory to an arbitration clause, and the minors never created accounts, signed the Terms, activated kits, or accessed the website.
- The Terms were written as a personal agreement between the signatory and Ancestry, with no language purporting to act “on behalf of” anyone else, and the separate DNA Processing Consent did not incorporate the Terms.
- The Terms expressly disclaimed any third-party beneficiaries, undercutting Ancestry’s argument that the children benefited from the service.
- Direct benefits estoppel did not apply because any benefit to the minors was “potential” or “inchoate,” with no evidence they had used Ancestry’s platform or seen their results.7FindLaw. Coatney v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC
The practical effect is that Coatney proceeds in federal court on the underlying GIPA claims, and companies hoping to pull non-signatories into arbitration now have a clear roadmap of what their contracts need to say and what evidence of use they need to show.
Auto-Renewal Subscription Lawsuit
In 2020, Marta Carrera Chapple filed a proposed class action in the Southern District of California (Chapple v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01456), alleging that Ancestry violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law and engaged in false advertising by enrolling consumers in auto-renewing memberships without affirmative consent or “clear and conspicuous” disclosures.9The Register. Ancestry.com Seeks Arbitrator Decision on Auto-Enrolling Membership Lawsuit The complaint sought more than $250 million in restitution.10Law360. Ancestry.com Hit With $250M Auto-Renew Suit in Calif. Ancestry moved to compel arbitration under its terms of service.11Law360. Ancestry.com Asks to Arbitrate $250M Auto-Renew Suit
DNA Data Handling Claims
In 2019, Lori Collett filed a class action in the Northern District of California (No. 3:19-cv-03743) against Ancestry.com DNA LLC and Ancestry.com Inc., alleging a “longstanding practice” of failing to obtain sufficient informed consent for the release of medical and DNA information. The complaint accused Ancestry of “misleading and deceiving patients in California and across the country about what Ancestry was actually doing with their DNA.”12Bloomberg Law. Ancestry.com Sued for Misleading DNA Data Handling Claims On December 19, 2019, Judge Richard Seeborg granted Ancestry’s motion to compel arbitration, ending the federal court case.13CourtListener. Collett v. Ancestry.com DNA LLC
Right of Publicity Lawsuits
A newer front targets how Ancestry promotes its service. In 2023, Ethan Shebesh filed a class action in the Northern District of Illinois (Shebesh v. Ancestry.com, No. 1:23-cv-04195), alleging that Ancestry and co-defendant Geneanet SA used consumers’ identifying information to promote paid “Premium” memberships without written consent, in violation of the Illinois Right to Publicity Act.14Top Class Actions. Ancestry.com Class Action Claims Website Shows Identifying Info During Advertising Memberships
In 2024, a similar case was filed in the Northern District of Ohio. Nemcik v. Ancestry.com (No. 3:24-cv-00335) alleged that Ancestry used yearbook data, including low-resolution photos and personal details, to build advertisements aimed at non-subscribers, giving the false impression that the people shown were affiliated with the company. The complaint invoked Ohio’s right of publicity statute and sought damages on behalf of a proposed class of non-subscribing Ohio residents.15Injury Claims. Ancestry.com Lawsuit Unauthorized Use Photos
What Ancestry Says Now, and What’s Coming
Ancestry’s current privacy statement, effective May 2026, says the company does not share genetic information with third-party marketers, insurers, or employers, and will not use genetic information for marketing or personalized advertising without “separate, explicit consent.” De-identified genetic data can go to research partners only if the user signs a separate “Informed Consent to Research.” Users can manage, delete, or destroy their biological samples and DNA data at any time. One boundary worth knowing: Ancestry says it is not a “covered entity” under HIPAA, so federal health privacy rules do not apply to data submitted to the service.3Ancestry. Privacy Statement
As of late 2025, Blackstone was weighing an exit through either an IPO or a sale, with reports suggesting a public listing could value Ancestry at roughly $10 billion. The company reported more than three million paying subscribers and over $1 billion in annual revenue.16Private Equity Wire. Blackstone Explores Sale or IPO of Ancestry.com Any new transfer of ownership would raise the same question the GIPA cases were built around: what happens to users’ genetic data when the company holding it changes hands.