1. Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990, USA)

This is one of the most influential biobank-related cases.

Facts

John Moore’s spleen cells were used by researchers at UCLA to develop a valuable cell line (the “Mo cell line”) without informing him that his tissues had commercial value.

Legal issue

Did Moore retain ownership rights over his excised cells, and could he control their use?

Judgment

The California Supreme Court held:

• Moore had no continuing property rights in his excised cells.
• However, physicians had breached informed consent duties by failing to disclose research/commercial interests.

Impact on withdrawal rights

• Once tissue is removed, ownership generally transfers away from the donor.
• Withdrawal rights become ethical/consent-based, not property-based.
• Once a cell line is developed, it is practically impossible to “withdraw” it.

2. Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust (2009, UK Court of Appeal)

Facts

Cancer patients stored sperm samples before chemotherapy. The samples were accidentally destroyed due to negligence.

Legal issue

Did patients have property rights in stored sperm?

Judgment

The court held:

• The men did have property rights in their stored sperm.
• The hospital was liable for negligence.

Impact on withdrawal rights

• This case marks a shift: human biological material can be treated as property in limited contexts.
• Strengthens the argument that donors may have control rights, including withdrawal or destruction requests.
• However, it does not create absolute ownership over all human tissue.

3. Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd (2007, UK House of Lords / ECHR)

Facts

Natallie Evans had embryos created with her partner before cancer treatment. After separation, the partner withdrew consent for implantation.

Legal issue

Can one party withdraw consent after embryo creation?

Judgment

• Consent must be continuing and ongoing.
• The partner’s withdrawal of consent was valid, preventing implantation.
• European Court of Human Rights upheld this under Article 8 (private life rights).

Impact on biobank withdrawal logic

• Establishes a strong principle: consent can be withdrawn even after biological material is created into embryos.
• Withdrawal rights are prioritized over the other party’s reproductive interests.
• However, once withdrawal occurs, destruction/cessation is allowed—not restoration of control.

4. Catalona v Washington University (2006, USA Federal Courts)

Facts

Dr. Catalona collected human tissue samples from patients for research at Washington University. He later moved institutions and attempted to transfer the biobank samples with him.

Legal issue

Who owns the tissue samples—the donor, the researcher, or the institution?

Judgment

• The court held:
  • Donors had no ownership rights once they donated samples.
  • The institution held lawful control under consent agreements.
• Donors could withdraw consent prospectively, but could not reclaim already donated samples.

Impact on withdrawal rights

• Strongly limits withdrawal:
  • You can stop future use.
  • You generally cannot demand return of existing samples.
• Biobanks gain institutional control once consent is executed.

5. Greenberg v Miami Children’s Hospital (2003, USA)

Facts

Families donated tissue for research into Canavan disease. The hospital later patented the gene and developed a diagnostic test without sharing benefits.

Legal issue

Did donors retain rights or control over genetic material?

Judgment

• Court rejected property claims by donors.
• However, ethical concerns about consent and benefit-sharing were acknowledged.

Impact on withdrawal rights

• Reinforces that:
  • Genetic material once donated becomes part of research infrastructure.
  • Withdrawal rights are weak once data or discoveries are generated.
• Highlights tension between research utility and donor autonomy.

6. Havasupai Tribe v Arizona State University (2010 settlement, USA)

Facts

Blood samples were collected from the Havasupai tribe for diabetes research but were later used for studies on migration and mental illness.

Legal issue

Did researchers exceed consent boundaries, and could participants withdraw?

Outcome

• Case settled out of court.
• Samples were returned or destroyed.
• Financial compensation was provided.

Impact on withdrawal rights

• Strong affirmation of:
  • Purpose-limited consent
  • Right to demand return or destruction when consent is breached
• Biobanks must respect scope of consent strictly.

7. Skloot-inspired Henrietta Lacks context (HeLa cells, ongoing legal influence)

While not a single courtroom ruling on withdrawal rights, the HeLa cell line case has deeply influenced legal thinking.

Facts

Cells taken from Henrietta Lacks without consent were used to create the first immortal human cell line.

Legal significance

• No legal ownership was recognized by her family.
• Modern discourse has led to:
  • stricter consent rules
  • emphasis on transparency in biobanking

Impact

• Demonstrates the irreversibility problem:
  • Once cells are cultured and distributed globally, withdrawal is practically impossible.

Core Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases

Across jurisdictions, the following principles define biobank withdrawal rights:

1. Consent can usually be withdrawn

But only:

• prospectively (future use stops)
• not retroactively (past research remains valid)

2. Ownership of tissue is limited or conditional

• Generally no full property rights (Moore, Catalona)
• Limited rights may exist in stored reproductive material (Yearworth)

3. Biobanks gain institutional control after donation

• Especially where consent forms assign custody

4. Withdrawal becomes practically impossible after anonymization or derivation

• Cell lines, genomic datasets, and derived products cannot be “recalled”

5. Ethical compliance is stronger than legal ownership

• Many withdrawal protections come from research ethics frameworks rather than enforceable property law

Bottom Line

Biobank withdrawal rights are strong in principle but limited in effect:

• You can usually stop future use.
• You rarely can reclaim or erase already used biological materials.
• Once samples enter research systems and are transformed into data or cell lines, legal systems prioritize scientific continuity over individual control.