Categories
Digital Health MedTech

What Happened to 23andMe? The Rise, Fall, and Future of a Consumer Genetics Pioneer

Understanding the 23andMe Journey

23andMe was founded in 2006 by Anne Wojcicki, Linda Avey, and Paul Cusenza with a bold vision: to put the power of genetics directly into the hands of consumers. The startup pioneered the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing market, offering affordable at-home DNA test kits that could reveal ancestry roots, inherited traits, and potential health risks.

The company made headlines early on with its $999 saliva-based DNA test, which later dropped to $99—making it accessible to millions. For the first time, individuals could decode their DNA without going through a doctor or lab. This democratization of genetic data made 23andMe a household name and a Silicon Valley darling.

But with innovation came regulatory friction. In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) halted the marketing of 23andMe’s health reports, citing concerns over accuracy and consumer safety. After years of negotiations, the company received FDA clearance in 2017 for specific health risk reports, such as predispositions to Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

The Business Model Shift

23andMe wasn’t just selling DNA kits—it was building a data-driven biotech engine. Over time, it accumulated one of the largest genomic databases in the world. This treasure trove of anonymized genetic data became a valuable asset for pharmaceutical research.

Image: GSK’s 2018 partnership with 23andMe marked a major turning point for the company’s therapeutics ambitions.

In 2018, 23andMe announced a high-profile partnership with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), aiming to develop new drugs using its consumer data. The move signaled a pivot from consumer health to therapeutics.

The company went public in 2021 via a SPAC merger, reaching a valuation of nearly $3.5 billion. It was a landmark moment, but also the peak of its trajectory.

Why Did 23andMe File for Bankruptcy?

In early 2025, 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection—a stunning development for one of health tech’s most iconic players.

The reasons behind the collapse are multifaceted:

  • Declining demand for consumer DNA tests as the novelty wore off
  • Privacy concerns and increased scrutiny over genetic data usage
  • Limited success from the GSK partnership, with no therapies reaching late-stage trials
  • Rising operational costs amid a tougher funding environment for biotech startups

The consumer genetics market matured and contracted. With fewer new customers and limited revenue from therapeutics, 23andMe faced an unsustainable business model.

The Chapter 11 filing offers a path to restructure. However, it remains unclear whether the company will recover, pivot again, or sell off its most valuable asset—its genomic database.

Who Is Anne Wojcicki?

Anne Wojcicki, born in 1973, is the co-founder and CEO of 23andMe. A biology graduate from Yale, Wojcicki began her career as a healthcare investment analyst before disrupting the world of genomics.

She envisioned a more transparent, consumer-centric healthcare model—one where individuals could access and understand their own genetic code. Her leadership helped push personalized medicine into the mainstream.

Wojcicki is a prominent advocate for digital health, women in STEM, and healthcare innovation. She was formerly married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin and is the sister of former YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki.

Even as 23andMe faces restructuring, Anne Wojcicki remains a powerful voice in biotech, known for challenging traditional healthcare and betting on the future of data-driven medicine.


Subscribe to Disrupting.Healthcare for more insights into MedTech, digital health trends, and the companies shaping the future of care.

Categories
Digital Health

23andMe Unveils Total Health to Become a HealthTech Company

23andMe, renowned for ancestry tracing, steps into healthcare with “Total Health”, a service set to decode your health secrets embedded in your genes for $1,188 a year.

23andme offering. Source: 23andme

This leap from mere curiosity to actionable health insights exemplifies 23andMe’s ethos of evolving with scientific advancements. It also addresses earlier concerns on the misinterpretation of the data, false positives, and consumers left without healthcare professional support that the company faced in the past.

23andme TotalHealth screenshots. Source: 23andme
23andMe journey into healthcare:
  • 2006: Founded with the aim to help people access, understand, and benefit from the human genome.
  • 2007: Launched Personal Genome Service.
  • 2013: FDA issues a warning letter prohibiting marketing of the Saliva Collection Kit and PGS until it received proper marketing authorization for the device
  • 2015: FDA authorized the marketing of a Bloom Syndrome carrier test, marking a significant regulatory milestone.
  • 2017: Expanded to offer risk reports for conditions like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
  • 2021: Acquired Lemonaid Health, stepping into telehealth.
  • 2023: Launches Total Health, transitioning into a holistic healthcare provider.

Total Health, employing exome sequencing, unravels the entire protein-coding region of your DNA, spotlighting “actionable” genes. With healthcare practitioners on board, 23andMe’s endeavor isn’t just to hand over a report, but to guide you through a personalized health regimen, marking a significant stride in proactive healthcare.

This service, available from November seems to be a significant milestone in pivoting 23andme from scientific entertainment and curiosity, towards a proper healthcare service.

Categories
Pharma Marketing

FDA asks 23andme to stop marketing of unapproved test and device

After months of negotiations, FDA finally lost patience and sends a warning letter to Google-backed 23andme, a genome testing company. 23andme was marketing its saliva based genetic test device and the test (Personal Genome Service) itself without an obligatory marketing clearance.

23andMe (Photo credit: brendanlim)

 

What FDA’s letter means

The letter is very direct and harsh and its tone, reminding Mrs. Anne Wojcicki, the founder of 23andme, that FDA really tried to help:

More than 14 face-to-face and teleconference meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of written communications, we provided you with specific feedback on study protocols and clinical and analytical validation requirements, discussed potential classifications and regulatory pathways (including reasonable submission timelines), provided statistical advice, and discussed potential risk mitigation strategies

The letter is the final warning. If 23andme fails to cease its marketing activities and provide a plan to align itself to the regulatory demands, FDA will start a regulatory action without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties – FDA warns.
At K-Message, we usually praise innovation, courage and development of new ways of dealing with complicated problems. 23andme could be a hero of our story. But Mrs Anne Wojcicki‘s approach is hard to support.

FDA’s concerns

FDA’s main concern is, as specified in the letter, a potential risk of negative impact of the often alarming test results coming from PGS. False positive or false negative from the PGS may affect actions of the people. Someone who was falsely informed that has high risk of breast cancer (BRCA mutation), can undergo prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention, invasive screenings and last, but not least will suffer tremendous psychological stress.
On the other hand, false negative may lead people from the risk groups to ignore prevention at all. Another dangerous part of 23andme service is informing about personal reaction to the drug. It produces a risk of “self-managing” therapy and lowering adherence to the therapy prescribed by real HCP. Such non-compliance may lead to serious risk of illness, injury and even death, as in the FDAs example of wayfarin, popular anticoagulant or “blood thinner“, which may cause internal bleeding if overdosed.

Problems with 23andme technology

23andme technology is far from being bulletproof. The assumptions it bases on, the links between particular genes and diseases are not really mapped and confirmed in regular clinical trials on big samples. Even Mrs. Wojcicki admits, that her goal is to gather a test sample big enough to  falsify the assumptions on which results are presented to the patients.
But it is not only about state-of-knowledge about human genome as today. Even the software that generates PGS results can mislead patients, as described in this personal story “My deadly disease was just a bug”. It also happened, that 23andme simply mixed the samples and 96 of its users recveived data od someone else, who just had a bad luck to have his/hers saliva on the same testing  plate.
It does not make Mrs. Wojcicki any more apologetic though.

Linda Avey and Anne Wojcicki of 23 and Me (Photo credit: dfarber)

Right to know, but what?

The problem is, Mrs. Wojcicki often diminishes such concerns. She said once, that the main concern of doctors is that her service generates “non-billable, educated questions“. When the Agency first warned 23andme together with other gene testing companies in 2010, Mrs. Wojcicki’s line of defense was freedom to know information about your own body.
FDA has nothing against testing itself and having this knowledge available. The problem is that the knowledge has to be true and not misleading. As Mrs. Elizabeth A. Mansfield, director of personalized medicine in the F.D.A.’s medical device division, said to NYT, the agency agreed that people had a right to their genetic information.
The concern, she said, was that 23andMe was also providing interpretations of what that data meant medically. Some commentators, that come more from a tech than pharma tend to see the conflict between 23andme and FDA as “new vs old” clash.
We believe it is not the case this time. It is rather good ol’ regulatory action against dangerous false claim in healthcare, or even quackery. 23andme does not offer substantial evidence to support the reports provided to their clients. Their often misleading information can lead to health risk, and therefore FDA has to intervene. It has nothing to do with freedom of the information, as the information is too often false and affects really important matter.
 

Exit mobile version