From DNA breaches and nuclear-powered AI to the dark side of cheap electronics, tech’s legal landscape is evolving faster than most systems can keep up. This week, we unpack three high-stakes stories where innovation collides with risk: a landmark fine for genetic data failures at 23andMe, Meta’s pivot to nuclear energy to fuel AI ambitions, and the environmental fallout of “fast-tech” gadgets.

In this edition:

🧬 23andMe and a £2.3m Fee: DNA Firm Fined Over UK Data Breach

👍🏽 From Likes to Reactors: Meta’s Nuclear Power Play

🖥️ Fast-Tech, Lasting Waste: The Hidden Cost of Cheap Gadgets

23andMe and a £2.3m Fee: DNA Firm Fined Over UK Data Breach

Genetic testing firm 23andMe has been fined £2.3 million by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after a significant cyberattack exposed sensitive data belonging to over 155,000 UK users.

The ICO found that the company failed to implement adequate security measures to protect user accounts, allowing hackers to gain access via credential stuffing – a method where stolen passwords from other breaches are reused. Exposed data included ancestry information, health insights, family trees, and personal details, much of which was later offered for sale online. The wider breach affected around 7 million users globally.

The watchdog criticised 23andMe for its lack of multi-factor authentication and poor incident detection, noting the company only became aware of the breach after stolen data appeared on Reddit.

Adding to the fallout, Addleshaw Goddard, a major UK law firm, is representing hundreds of affected British customers preparing legal action against 23andMe. The group alleges negligence in protecting highly sensitive genetic and personal information.

The company, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March, is now set to be acquired by TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit linked to co-founder Anne Wojcicki. 23andMe says it has since improved security protocols and vowed to limit data transfers going forward.

🔴 Genetic Identity Misuse May Trigger a New Wave of Legal Claims

The 23andMe breach exposed not only personal data but highly sensitive genetic information. Because DNA is permanent and linked to family members, it carries risks far beyond traditional data leaks. In the years ahead, we could see legal claims involving genetic identity theft, such as unauthorised profiling, predictive targeting, or mistaken identification in legal or medical contexts. These types of cases could drive courts to treat genetic data not just as personal information, but as a core part of legal identity – raising questions about rights, consent, and long-term accountability.

🟡 Ancestry Data May Be Misused by AI Tools, Leading to Legal Exposure

The stolen data includes ethnicity estimates and familial connections, which could be misinterpreted or repurposed by third-party platforms or algorithms. If this results in bias, discrimination, or reputational damage, 23andMe – or others handling similar data – could face legal action under equality laws or for emotional harm. As AI tools become more involved in interpreting genetic and demographic data, companies will need stronger safeguards to prevent algorithmic misuse and protect against emerging liabilities.

🟢 Selling Genetic Data in Bankruptcy Raises Ethical and Legal Tensions

As part of its Chapter 11 proceedings, 23andMe’s data may be treated as a business asset. But because this data includes users’ genetic information – often shared under personal, medical, or research expectations – selling it could clash with individual rights and prior consent agreements. Courts may soon have to decide whether genomic data can be sold like software or must be protected more like personal health records. This could influence how companies handle sensitive data during insolvency and reshape rules around data ownership and consent in asset sales.

From Likes to Reactors: Meta’s Nuclear Power Play

Meta has struck a landmark 20-year deal with Constellation Energy to source nuclear power for its expanding artificial intelligence and data centre operations. The agreement secures energy from the Clinton Clean Energy Centre in Illinois, helping to keep the plant open well beyond its planned 2027 closure.

This marks Meta’s first direct investment in nuclear energy and reflects a wider shift among tech giants seeking reliable, low-carbon power to meet soaring AI demands. The Clinton facility, which generates enough electricity for around 800,000 homes, will expand its capacity by 30 megawatts under the deal.

The move also brings economic benefits to the region – safeguarding over 1,100 jobs, generating £10.6 million in annual tax revenues, and contributing £790,000 to local community initiatives over five years.

As federal subsidies for nuclear power expire, private deals like this are becoming crucial to maintaining existing reactors. Meta joins the likes of Microsoft and Google in backing nuclear as a clean energy solution to power AI and cloud infrastructure.

The deal underscores nuclear energy’s renewed relevance as tech firms aim to hit net-zero targets without compromising on reliability.

🔴Regulatory Delays Could Derail Energy Supply and Trigger Legal Fallout

The Clinton nuclear plant’s continued operation depends on relicensing approvals from US regulators. If delayed or denied, Meta could face power shortages that disrupt AI infrastructure, breach internal targets, or violate third-party service level agreements. Legal action may arise from customers or partners if Meta fails to deliver on uptime or emissions commitments due to interrupted energy flow. It also raises the risk of stranded investment in dedicated infrastructure.

🟡 Contractual Fragility in a Volatile Energy and Policy Environment

While long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) offer stability, they are complex legal instruments. Changes in nuclear policy, clean energy credits, or federal incentives could shift the financial burden or invalidate pricing assumptions. If Constellation faces regulatory or operational barriers, Meta may have limited recourse. Disputes over force majeure, performance benchmarks, or exit clauses could lead to costly arbitration or renegotiation.

🟢 Precedent-Setting Implications for Energy Procurement Law

By underwriting the operation of a nuclear facility, Meta is stepping into a quasi-utility role. Future cases could test whether corporate-backed energy deals carry added duties – such as public interest obligations, energy justice considerations, or heightened transparency under securities or climate disclosure laws. This deal may open the door to regulatory challenges over corporate influence on critical infrastructure.

Fast-Tech, Lasting Waste: The Hidden Cost of Cheap Gadgets

Cheap gadgets such as mini fans, portable chargers and electric toothbrushes are filling homes across the UK. However, while these “fast-tech” items may be low-cost, they are far from disposable. Over 1.14 billion small electronics are bought in the UK each year, with around 589 million discarded – equating to 19 every second, according to Material Focus.

These novelty items (often purchased for holidays, heatwaves or as gimmicks) are fuelling a growing e-waste problem. Though they appear trivial, they contain batteries, metals and wiring, meaning they must be recycled properly. However, many people don’t even realise they count as electronic waste.

Scott Butler of Material Focus says the scale of consumption, coupled with a throwaway culture, is worsening environmental damage. Environmentalist Laura Young adds that many of these gadgets end up wrongly binned and forgotten.

The issue extends beyond UK borders. In 2019, the UK was named the world’s worst offender for illegal e-waste exports, with shipments traced from council recycling centres to countries like Nigeria, Tanzania and Pakistan.

Campaigners are urging consumers to rethink their habits – choosing longer-lasting products when necessary, and recycling responsibly. Fast-tech may be cheap at the checkout, but its environmental cost is anything but.

🔴 Criminal Exposure from Illegal E-Waste Exports

The UK has previously been the worst offender for unlawful e-waste exports, with items traced from council recycling sites to countries like Nigeria, Tanzania, and Pakistan. Exporting hazardous waste to non-OECD countries violates the Basel Convention and UK/EU waste shipment laws. If fast-tech items are misclassified or improperly routed, councils, contractors, and tech brands could face criminal prosecution, fines, and international scrutiny. Investigations could also lead to enforcement action against firms relying on opaque waste supply chains.

🟡 Regulatory and Commercial Liability under WEEE and Consumer Law

Manufacturers and retailers must comply with UK WEEE regulations, which require them to finance safe disposal and educate consumers. Mislabelled or poorly designed gadgets (e.g. those appearing non-electronic) risk breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. Retailers could face regulatory fines, civil liability, or forced product withdrawals. Additionally, failure to meet recycling quotas or inform consumers about proper disposal could trigger enforcement notices or damage public trust.

🟢 Emerging Risks from Sustainability and ESG Regulations

As ESG disclosure rules tighten, firms that flood markets with low-quality tech may come under pressure to account for their environmental impact. Future sustainability reporting standards or extended producer responsibility laws could make companies legally liable for a product’s full life cycle. This could set precedents around whether “fast-tech” is inherently incompatible with circular economy goals – potentially impacting brand value, access to green finance, or eligibility for eco-certifications.