Photo of Elizabeth Brim

Elizabeth Brim

Elizabeth Brim provides strategic advice to clients across the health care, life sciences, digital health, and technology sectors, helping them navigate complex privacy, regulatory, and compliance issues involving health and other personal information.

Elizabeth advises clients on compliance with evolving privacy, data governance, and regulatory frameworks governing the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health, genetic, consumer health, and other sensitive data. Her work includes counseling on HIPAA, state privacy laws, information blocking requirements, TEFCA, and other federal and state laws affecting health information, digital health technologies, and privacy compliance more broadly.

Elizabeth’s experience spans a broad range of privacy, data governance, cybersecurity, and regulatory issues arising in connection with innovative products and services, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, clinical trials and research initiatives, strategic transactions, and commercial arrangements. She regularly advises clients on complex issues involving data governance, privacy compliance, and the protection and exchange of health and other sensitive information.

Elizabeth also advises clients on related health care regulatory and compliance matters, including fraud and abuse, corporate practice of medicine, and other requirements affecting innovative care delivery models.

Elizabeth maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes assisting nonprofit entities with data privacy compliance and vendor contracting.

Elizabeth is an author of the American Health Law Association treatise, Pricing, Market Access, and Reimbursement Principles: Drugs, Biologicals and Medical Devices and the U.S. chapter of the Global Legal Insights treatise, Pricing & Reimbursement Laws and Regulations.

The Illinois Governor recently signed SB 2886, which expands the scope of the state’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”) to include “biomarker testing” and “biomarker.” GIPA currently regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of genetic testing information.

The bill defines “biomarker” as “a characteristic that is objectively measured and…

Continue Reading Illinois Expands Genetic Privacy Law to Biomarkers

In what continues to be a busy year for genetic privacy developments, Rhode Island has joined the growing number of states regulating direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing with its recently enacted genetic privacy law, S 2203. With S 2203, Rhode Island is the fifth state to enact genetic privacy legislation this year, following Utah, South Dakota, Connecticut, and Vermont. 

Continue Reading Rhode Island Enacts Genetic Privacy Law

Vermont recently enacted two privacy bills to regulate health-related information. These include H.639, a genetic privacy bill regulating direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (S.71), a comprehensive privacy law that extends heightened protections to “consumer health data.” You can read our full analysis of S.71 here.

Continue Reading Vermont Enacts Privacy Legislation to Regulate Health-Related Information

On November 4, 2025, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (“HELP”) Committee, introduced the Health Information Privacy Reform Act (“HIPRA”). HIPRA seeks to extend protections similar to those provided under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended, and its implementing regulations (collectively, “HIPAA”) to certain health information collected by entities not currently regulated by HIPAA. HIPRA also proposes modifications and calls for guidance related to certain existing provisions of HIPAA as well as Part 2 (related to substance use disorder medical history).

Continue Reading U.S. Senate Introduces the Health Information Privacy Reform Act

In late September, plaintiffs announced details regarding Google LLC’s (“Google”) and women’s health app developer, Flo Health Inc.’s (“Flo”) proposed settlements to resolve a class action lawsuit stemming from the Flo app’s allegedly unlawful sharing of health data with Google and others through online tracking technologies.

As part of the proposed settlements, Google agreed to pay $48 million and Flo agreed to pay $8 million, for a combined $56 million to resolve plaintiffs’ claims against these two entities.

Continue Reading Flo Health, Google Settle Class Action Privacy Lawsuit for $56 Million

On September 24, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data (“MIND”) Act of 2025, which would require the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to conduct a study and provide a report examining the governance of “neural data” under existing law and identify additional areas for federal regulation.  The bill would also require the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”) to issue guidance regarding federal agencies’ use of certain neurotechnology.

Continue Reading Congress Introduces Neural Data Bill

On June 19, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated the majority of the Biden Administration rule (the “2024 Rule”) modifying the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy Rule”) under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) regarding protected health information (“PHI”) concerning reproductive health.  As discussed in further detail in our previous blog post, the 2024 Rule “limit[ed] the circumstances in which provisions of the Privacy Rule permit the use or disclosure of an individual’s PHI about reproductive health care for certain non-health care purposes.” 

Continue Reading District Court Enjoins Privacy Rule Modifications Regarding Reproductive Health Care

Since the beginning of 2025, there have been a flurry of bills introduced at the state and federal level related to genetic privacy, which follows a similar trend over the past several years.  These bills have focused on a range of issues, including general genetic privacy, national security implications of “foreign adversaries” accessing genetic information, the privacy practices of direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing companies, and the transfer of genetic data as part of bankruptcy proceedings, among others.  We summarize a subset of such bills moving through state and federal legislatures below.

State Legislation

Montana SB 163

On May 1, the Montana governor signed SB 163 to amend the state’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“MT GIPA”), which was originally enacted in 2023.  Effective October 1, 2025, there will be several changes to the law, including:

  • Creating Deidentification Exemption: The original version of MT GIPA did not contain an express exemption for deidentified data.  SB 163 amends the law to include an express exemption for the use of deidentified genetic data for certain research purposes.  Specifically, SB 163 includes an exemption for “deidentified genetic data obtained from a third party to the extent that the data is used to conduct internal, medical, or scientific research.”  The deidentification standard is similar to the standard adopted under many comprehensive state privacy laws and other state DTC genetic privacy laws.
  • Waiver of Certain Rights in the Clinical Trial Context: The law provides that consumers’ rights to access and delete data, destroy samples, and revoke consent must be waived in a limited context related to the collection of genetic data as part of a clinical trial if certain conditions are met, including prescriptive requirements for consent.  Specifically:
    • The relevant entity generally must obtain express and informed written consent for participation in a clinical research trial, including the collection and use of any genetic data, which must, among others, be in accordance with the good clinical practice (“GCP”) guideline issued by the international council for harmonisation of technical requirements for pharmaceuticals for home use and include the entity’s biological sample and data retention, sharing, and use policies.
    • The biological sample and genetic data must be utilized for clinical research purposes only.

SB 163 states that these requirements are meant to “supersede all exceptions to, and waivers of” informed consent pursuant to the federal Common Rule.  However, it is not clear how this new limited exemption is meant to interact with the existing exemption for entities that are engaged in collecting, using, or analyzing genetic data or biological samples in the context of scientific or clinical research with express consent of the individual and in accordance with human subject research frameworks, including GCP, the federal Common Rule, or FDA’s human subjects research regulations at 21 C.F.R. parts 50 and 56.

Continue Reading Multiple States Enact Genetic Privacy Legislation in a Busy Start to 2025

On September 28, California’s governor signed a number of bills into law, including to regulate health care facilities’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”).  This included AB 3030, which regulates certain California-licensed health care facilities’ use of AI and SB 1223, which amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)…

Continue Reading California Enacts Health AI Bill and Protections for Neural Data