Utah House Bill HB0548

Utah 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/27/25
• Report Pass: 3/3/25
• Engrossed: 3/3/25
• Failed: 3/7/25

Caption

Genetic Information Amendments

Impact

One of the significant impacts of HB 0548 is the requirement for entities handling genetic data to comply with stringent security measures, including the use of encryption and limiting access to sensitive data. Facilities must ensure they are not using prohibited genetic sequencers, which could lead to significant operational changes. The bill mandates that compliance be confirmed annually through sworn statements submitted to the attorney general, and violations can lead to substantial fines, signaling an increased state oversight in genetic data management.

Summary

House Bill 0548, titled 'Genetic Information Amendments', establishes regulations regarding the use of genetic sequencing tools and the storage of genetic sequencing data. The bill aims to prohibit medical and genomic research facilities from utilizing specific genetic sequencers and software produced by foreign adversaries. The legislation provides a framework to ensure that sensitive genetic data is not stored within the jurisdictions of foreign adversaries, thereby enhancing data security and safeguarding the integrity of genetic information.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appears generally supportive among legislators focused on cybersecurity and data protection. Proponents argue that the measures outlined in the bill are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive genetic information and maintain national security. However, there may be concerns regarding the potential for increased regulatory burden on medical and research facilities, which some critics might view as an overreach that complicates their operations.

Contention

Notable points of contention likely revolve around the broad definitions of 'foreign adversaries' and the stipulations on data storage and equipment usage. Discussions may highlight potential challenges in enforcement and compliance, particularly regarding which entities fall under the restrictions and how facilities will adapt to these regulations. Critics could argue that such measures may inadvertently limit research capabilities or drive up costs for healthcare providers, prompting debates over the balance between security and innovation in genetic research.