Terms of Exclusion: Why Ancestry.com’s Records Ban Could Stall Hundreds of Cold Case Investigations
Kendall Mills, Program Director
April 2026
While some think of Forensic Genetic Genealogy (FGG or IGG) as a high-tech biological science, it’s actually an exercise in historical reconstruction. DNA is rarely a “straight line”; because of the random nature of genetic inheritance, shared DNA between relatives fluctuates significantly. You might share 14% of your DNA with one cousin, but only 9% with her biological sister.
To an investigator, these percentages are just raw data: static numbers that indicate a relationship exists but fail to explain what that relationship is. To turn a shared DNA profile into a specific name, investigators must rely on the “paper trail of humanity”: census records, birth indices, military drafts, and obituaries. This historical data is the map that makes sense of the genetic compass. Without it, the ability to effectively and efficiently identify a single person from a pool of potentially thousands of distant relatives disappears.
However, the decision of a single private company has recently turned this map into forbidden territory. In 2025, Ancestry.com updated its Terms of Service to bar the use of any of its platforms for investigative purposes. By doing so, they didn’t just protect DNA privacy; they effectively locked the doors to the world’s largest searchable archive of public records, leaving cold case investigators and genealogists stranded with the DNA, but no way to isolate the individual it belongs to.
The Privatization of the Commons
The irony of modern genealogy is that while the records themselves are public, owned by the people and physically housed in government archives, the most efficient way to access them is privately owned.
Ancestry.com has spent decades building and acquiring massive databases. They own Find-A-Grave, the largest repository of gravesite info, and have entered into lucrative agreements with local and state governments to digitize their archives. As noted in a 2018 lawsuit by the nonprofit Reclaim the Records, these deals often create a “paywall for public records.” While a resident might be able to view these for free at a local library, a forensic genealogist working a case 2,000 miles away is forced into a nearly $200/year subscription just to see a document our tax dollars already paid for.
Why the Records Ban is Worse than the DNA Ban
Much of the public discourse focuses on DNA privacy. However, Ancestry has never allowed law enforcement to search its DNA database. Forensic Genetic Genealogy has always functioned by using DNA databases that allow users to “opt in” for law enforcement searches (like GEDmatch and FamilyTree DNA) to find a lead, and then using public records – most likely housed by Ancestry.com – to build out family trees and identify potential suspects.
By banning investigators from using the record databases, Ancestry has removed the engine from the car. While these records can technically be accessed in person at various county clerks’ offices, it’s an impractical solution for cold case units already operating on shoestring budgets.
A Veto on Justice?
The move by Ancestry raises an uncomfortable question: Should a private corporation have the power to stall a homicide investigation by revoking access to public data?
When cities like Philadelphia enter into digitization deals with Ancestry, they often frame it as a win for accessibility and preservation, and most of the time it is. Digitizing and storing centuries of records is expensive and time consuming, two luxuries most government agencies don’t have. But would these local governments still sign those contracts if they knew their own law enforcement would eventually be barred from using the resulting index to solve violent crimes?
The Legal and Ethical Minefield
Beyond the practical hurdles, there is the looming threat of the courtroom. If a genealogist identifies a killer using Ancestry records in violation of the TOS, they risk more than a banned account. They risk providing defense attorneys with a “contractual breach” argument to challenge the admissibility of the lead itself and threatening the future use of FGG in cold case investigations.
Where Do We Go From Here?
We are entering an era where our history is locked behind corporate walls, available only to those with the financial resources to buy access. While the privacy of biological data (DNA) is a valid and necessary concern, the same cannot be said for a 1940 census record or a 1910 death certificate.
As our public records continue being locked behind private paywalls and use of those records restricted on the whims of a private entity, we must ask ourselves: How does this protect digital privacy? And is it worth denying justice for the victims of our coldest crimes?