An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 23.1-408.2, relating to college student-athletes; biometric data; protections and limitations.
HB 971 adds a new section to the Virginia Code to protect college student-athletes’ biometric data. The bill defines biometric data broadly to include DNA, facial and voice identifiers, fingerprints, iris and retina imagery, vein patterns, keystroke and gait patterns, and certain sleep, health, or exercise data when used to identify a person. It applies to enrolled student-athletes at Virginia institutions of higher education.
The bill prohibits an institution from disclosing a student-athlete’s biometric data to anyone outside the institution without the athlete’s prior written consent. It also bars any person or entity from making ownership, possession, use, or rights to a student-athlete’s biometric data a condition of a name, image, or likeness (NIL) contract unless the athlete gives separate written consent apart from the NIL agreement.
The bill creates a new statutory privacy protection in Title 23.1 governing higher education and student-athlete rights. It restricts how Virginia colleges and universities may share biometric information and limits the use of such data in NIL-related contracting, requiring separate consent for biometric-data terms. The practical effect is to give student-athletes greater control over sensitive personal data and to impose compliance obligations on institutions and NIL counterparties.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote breakdown, but the bill was enacted and approved as Chapter 247, indicating it moved through the General Assembly successfully. Based on the text, the measure appears to reflect a generally protective stance toward student-athlete privacy and autonomy, especially in the rapidly evolving NIL environment. There is no recorded opposition in the provided materials.
The main policy issue is the balance between student-athlete privacy and institutional or commercial use of biometric information. The bill’s broad definition of biometric data could affect colleges, NIL collectives, sponsors, and other entities that handle athlete data, particularly where health, exercise, or performance metrics are involved. A likely point of contention is the requirement for separate written consent and the prohibition on conditioning NIL contracts on biometric-data rights, which limits bargaining leverage for institutions and third parties while strengthening athlete control.