Is Sperm Donor Anonymity a Thing of the Past?

For more than a century, since the first known use of in vitro fertilization as an infertility treatment, U.S. sperm donors traditionally have remained anonymous. But DNA testing for genetic disease, ancestry-tracing websites, and sibling registries changed everything, and sperm donor anonymity is no longer a lifetime guarantee. Today, in states such as California, New York and Washington, the law is catching up to the science and the reality of the consumer marketplace.

The ‘Wild West’ of U.S. Reproductive Law

Laws and regulations governing assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the United States are a checkerboard, differing from state to state on issues such as how legal parentage is established, who may legally participate in surrogacy under what conditions and what donor information must be collected and maintained.

Because assisted reproduction is generally legal in the United States, many intended parents travel to the United States from other countries where surrogacy and even egg or sperm donation may be banned or limited only to married, heterosexual couples.

Sperm donation in the United States is among the least regulated among reproductive technologies and has evolved into a sprawling and lucrative industry. Sperm banks, along with other types of organ and tissue donations, are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which requires a review of donor medical record and screening for communicable diseases and requires that donor sperm be frozen and quarantined for six months before use. While the FDA requires sperm banks to preserve certain donor information for medical purposes, it does not weigh in on donor anonymity.

Almost all anonymous sperm donors in the U.S. are compensated, and historically some donors fathered dozens or even hundreds of half-siblings. There is no uniform limit in the U.S. on the number of donations from a single donor, but best standards in the sperm donation industry have evolved. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines call for limiting each donor to 25 live births per population area of 850,000, but there is no legal enforcement of the limit, and a donor could potentially donate at multiple sperm banks. Likewise, ASRM recommends the recording and preservation of donor contact information, but the recommendations have no force of law. Regulation by states varies, and there is no centralized system for tracking donors.

 Sperm Donation’s Secretive History

Although “artificial insemination” has been used for centuries in animal husbandry, the first recorded history of its successful use in humans occurred in the late 19th century. A Philadelphia medical professor inseminated an unconscious woman, whose elder husband was infertile, with sperm donated by a medical student voted by his peers as “best looking.” The case was not reported in an American medical journal, until 1909; the woman was never informed.

Over the ensuing decades, other doctors used the procedure to treat infertile patients. Cryopreservation, or the freezing of the donated sperm, had yet to be perfected, and the procedure required fresh sperm. Many doctors are believed to have inseminated patients using their own sperm.

From the beginning, infertility was stigmatized, a source of shame, particularly for men. Doctors performed the procedure privately, and the use of donated sperm was treated as a secret to be concealed. Often records were destroyed, to protect the privacy of the family or avoid future questions about paternity or inheritance.

In 1945, London gynecologist Mary Barton, who founded a clinic offering artificial insemination using donated sperm for women whose husbands were infertile, published an article on the procedure in the British Medical Journal. The clinic was said to have produced some 1,500 babies, 600 or so believed to have been fathered by Barton’s husband, generating criticism.

By 1951, some 20,000 babies were reported to have been born in the U.S. using donated sperm, but the procedure remained controversial. In 1953, American physician Dr. Jerome K. Sherman perfected the technology for preserving and freezing sperm, and the first successful pregnancy using frozen sperm was recorded.

Societal approval, however, lagged behind the science. In 1954, a Cook County, Illinois, court granted a divorce based on the fact that the wife, with the husband’s consent, had a child using donor sperm, calling the act of insemination “adultery” and the resulting child “illegitimate.”

A year later, Georgia passed a law deeming offspring born via donor insemination to be the legitimate children of the intended parents, with advance written consent of both. But other states continued to treat donor-conceived children as illegitimate through the 1960s.

In 1973, the Uniform Law Commission, followed by the American Bar Association a year later, adopted the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). The UPA, most recently updated in 2017, offers a legislative model for states to establish the paternity of children born to married or unmarried parents. Addressing the legitimacy of donor-inseminated children for the first time, it helped in normalizing the use of sperm donation as a solution to infertility.

Booming Sperm Bank Industry Fosters Anonymity

As the use of cryopreserved sperm was perfected in the 1970s and 1980s, and as the use of assisted reproduction became more accessible and more reliable, a thriving U.S. sperm bank industry was born. Of 4 million babies born in the United States in 2010, 30,000 to 60,000 are estimated to have been conceived using donor sperm.

There are estimated to be about two dozen sperm banks operating in the U.S. today. Donors, typically young and cash-poor, have typically been attracted by the promise of anonymity and compensation, sometimes as low as $25 per donation. Sperm donors who agree to be known to intended parents and resulting offspring typically are paid more, and intended parents may pay more for sperm from a “known donor.”

As other kinds of fertility treatment improved outcomes for men suffering from sterility in the 1980s, sperm banks found new, growing markets: unmarried women and lesbians.

The sperm banks learned that these new customers, particularly lesbian intended parents, expected to tell their children how they were conceived and sought out “known” or “identified donors” who would agree to future contact from their offspring.

California Limits Sperm Donor Anonymity

Several Western nations, including Austria, U.K., Sweden and New Zealand, have enacted laws requiring that sperm donors provide both medical and identifying information and agree to future contact from the donor’s offspring.

In 2011, Washington became the first U.S. state to enact legislation that limits sperm donor anonymity. The law guarantees that children who are conceived using gametes from a Washington sperm bank or agency will, upon turning 18, have access to their donors’ medical histories and full names—unless the donor has specifically opted out of being identified.

In October 2019, California legislators followed Washington lawmakers’ path, with a law, effective in January 2020, that requires sperm banks in the state to collect and retain a sperm donor’s full name, date of birth and address, as well as any other contact information provided. The new law also requires the sperm bank to obtain a declaration stating whether the donor does or does not authorize the agency to disclose the donor information to any resulting children when they reach age 18 and request the information.

But the California law adds a couple of additional twists on the Washington legislation. If the California donor fails to complete a declaration stating his intention to remain anonymous, or if the clinic loses or fails to produce the declaration, donor information must be released to the child upon request at age 18.

The offspring of the sperm donor still has one additional recourse. If the donor-conceived child, upon reaching age 18, requests donor information, the sperm bank—even if it has the donor’s refusal on file—must contact the donor and give him the opportunity to disclose his identity at that time.

Case Law Denies Complete Donor Anonymity

Case law is following the same trend toward encouraging donor disclosure and discouraging donor anonymity. In May 2020, a California appellate court ruled that a sperm donor’s right to privacy is not absolute.

In that case, a Santa Barbara family sued California Cryobank, one of the nation’s largest and best-established sperm banks, for allowing an anonymous donor with a family history of kidney disease to donate sperm. In a ruling believed to be the first of its kind in the U.S., according to a Los Angeles Times article, “the court said, the donor’s privacy right was ‘substantially diminished,’ in part because he deposited more than 320 specimens with the sperm bank.”

Earlier this year, New York legislators passed a sweeping package of reforms to existing reproductive and parentage law, ending the state’s 30-year surrogacy ban.

While the new law does not directly change the laws around sperm donor anonymity, it establishes a procedure for intended parents who use donated eggs, sperm, or embryos to establish their legal parentage before their child is born.

Will Ban on Anonymity Create a Sperm Donor Shortage?

The commercialization of sperm donation in the U.S. resulted in a large pool of donors, largely motivated by financial compensation and expecting anonymity. In reality, with the advent of consumer DNA-testing websites such as 23andMe and Ancestry.com, and sibling registries that help trace and connect half-siblings conceived by the same donor, even a sperm donor who has filed a refusal to be identified has no real guarantee of anonymity, regardless of what the law of his state says.

Some in the sperm donor industry fear the new push for disclosure will have a chilling effect on the donor pool. In a 1984 interview, then-California Cryobank co-owner Steve Broder explained to The Los Angeles Times, “After all, what guy who’s been paid $25 for his sperm, which is what we pay, wants to take the chance of being confronted 20 years later by one or three children, each claiming he is their biological father and each wanting love or a loan or something?”

A 2012 review of 29 studies from nine countries indicated that 20 percent to 50 percent of sperm donors would still donate even if anonymity could not be guaranteed.

However, studies of other countries have showed a drop in sperm donors after laws banning anonymity were enacted, as well as an increase in “reproductive tourism” travel to other countries where donor anonymity is prevalent.

For example, after Britain passed a law in 2005 allowing donor-conceived offspring to access donor-identifying information at age 18, only 307 people registered to become a sperm donor in 2006. Australia and New Zealand also have experienced shortages of both sperm donors and gamete supply. A 2016 study from Harvard Law School found that 29 percent of potential sperm donors would not donate if their names were put on a registry.

One impact on donors will no doubt be compensation. Sperm banks and agencies typically charge more for gametes from “known” donors, in part because it is harder to recruit sperm donors who will accept future contact. That means donors, with no expectation of privacy, will be paid more for each donation.

Other factors also will impact the financial compensation for donors as well as the donor pool. Although known donors can expect to be paid more, they are more likely to be limited to fewer donations, or the number of families using a single donor will be limited, as the industry moves to reduce the risk of a single donor conceiving scores or hundreds of half-siblings.

Other impacts on donors won’t be fully realized for another 18 years or so, when even donors who intended to donate anonymously may find their genetic progeny have sought them out.

Intended Parents May Prefer Anonymous Donor

While many intended parents are increasingly open to full transparency about their children’s conception via donated sperm, some, for social or cultural reasons, prefer that the sperm donor remain anonymous.

Some sperm donor recipients fear that a known donor will surface, uninvited, in their and their child’s lives, demanding a parental role. Others prefer to keep their reproductive history private from others, fearing familial disapproval or social stigma.

Still others worry that the existence of a genetic “parent” would harm their own parental relationship with their child. As assisted reproductive technology attorney Amira Hasenbush told AbovetheLaw.com in 2019, donors are less concerned about loss of anonymity than the intended parents—even though the law in California and in most states clearly states that the recipient parents, and not the sperm donor, are the legal parents of the child.

The other impact on intended parents will no doubt follow the laws of supply and demand. If the loss of anonymity—either by law or through consumer DNA tracing—indeed reduces the donor pool, the supply of donor sperm will fall, and costs probably will go up for intended parents.

Donor-Conceived Children’s Right to Know

Steeped in a history of secrecy and stigma, the sperm donor industry in the United States traditionally has prioritized the rights of the donor to anonymity over the rights of the donor-conceived child to know their biological origins.

In the 1980s, as fertility treatments improved and more single women and LGBTQ people began using sperm banks, attitudes toward sperm donation became more open and accepting.

The world’s first successful birth by in vitro fertilization occurred in 1973. As the children conceived via this new technology began to reach adulthood, some sought information about their genetic origins, only to be frustrated by sperm banks’ donor anonymity constraints.

Meanwhile, societal attitudes about adoption had changed to favor adopted children’s right to know their genetic origins.

In 2000, according to The New York Times, a donor-conceived child, with his mother, founded the Donor Sibling Registry, following in the footsteps of Single Mothers by Choice, a registry started by a single sperm donor recipient in the 1990s. Today, the Donor Sibling Registry, which requires that users be 18 or have parental permission, matches some 1,000 half-siblings or other genetic relatives each year.

In the United States, the FDA has mandated that sperm banks retain donor medical histories, guaranteeing the rights of donor-conceived children and their parents to information impacting future health. But today many experts believe children may be adversely affected emotionally as well if their genetic origins are concealed. According to ASRM’s fact sheet for intended parents, “while ultimately the choice of the recipient parent, disclosure to donor-conceived persons of the use of donor gametes or embryos in their conception is strongly encouraged.”

According to ASRM, disclosure builds trust among family members, fosters honesty between parents and children, allows parents and children to be forthcoming with their physicians, and avoids the chance that the secret might be forced out during a medical emergency.

How Will Sperm Donor Disclosure Change Assisted Reproduction?

Sperm donation and donor insemination in the U.S. historically was treated as an intensely private matter between doctor and patients and, with the advent of sperm banks, between donor and agency. Intended parents and sperm donors alike preferred anonymity.

 With the growing popularity and accessibility of assisted reproductive technology, attitudes have changed. It is too soon to know exactly what the impact of the loss of donor anonymity, voluntary or otherwise, will have on the field of ART, but there will be an impact. Already, priorities in the industry are shifting from protecting donor privacy to upholding the child’s right to information.

The ART attorneys and paralegals of IFLG believe that, ultimately, the benefits of transparency and openness will outweigh any potential declines in the donor pool and availability of donated sperm. But we also understand the choice to use (or to volunteer as) an open or anonymous donor is a very personal choice, and we support those choices fully, guiding our clients through the process in a way to best protect them now and in the future. For more information about egg, sperm or embryo donation and how to legally protect your family, contact IFLG today.


Richard Vaughn

Attorney Rich Vaughn is founder and principal of International Fertility Law Group, one of the world’s largest and best-known law firms focused exclusively on assisted reproductive technology, or ART, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, sperm donation or egg donation. Rich is co-author of the book “Developing A Successful Assisted Reproduction Technology Law Practice,” American Bar Association Publishing, 2017.

Peiya Wang
Paralegal (律师助理)

Peiya Wang joined IFLG as a paralegal in 2015, where she manages surrogacy, egg donation and parental establishment cases and provides translation services for many of IFLG’s international clients. Peiya moved to the United States in 2012 to attend Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, receiving a Master of Science degree in Global Studies and International Affairs in 2014. Peiya moved to Los Angeles in 2015, received her paralegal certification from UCLA Extension, and obtained her second Master of Science degree in Legal Studies from Loyola Law School. Peiya relocated back to her hometown, Beijing, China in 2019 and works from IFLG’s Beijing office. When away from the office, Peiya is a dragon boat paddler and a ballroom dancer, where she favors Rumbas and Cha-chas. She is fluent in Mandarin and English.

Luis Sosa

Luis R. Sosa joined IFLG as a paralegal in 2016, where he enjoys pursuing his passion for family and reproductive law. While working toward his bachelor’s degree at Florida International University which he received in 2013, Luis worked as a paralegal and legal assistant for family law litigation firms in Miami and Washington, D.C. As a paralegal and case manager for IFLG, Luis, who is bilingual in English and Spanish, manages surrogacy, egg donation and other reproductive law cases. Luis has worked for IFLG in both Los Angeles as well as San Francisco, and is currently based in Dallas, Texas. In addition to spending time with husband Randy and dog Marty, Luis enjoys being outdoors and appreciating the arts.

Toni Hughes

After receiving her B.S. in Business Management, Toni joined IFLG to pursue her dream of working in the legal field. As a Paralegal with over 10 years of experience in the assisted reproduction technology field, Toni is our Managing Paralegal, responsible for training and managing our paralegal staff. From drafting legal documents to assisting our clients with post-birth matters, Toni embraces the challenge of learning something new in this field each day. Besides spending time with her son, Jordan, Toni enjoys exploring new things, cooking, spending time with family and friends, and serving as a Youth Advisor for “Next Generation.”


Kim has over 30 years of experience in the legal field and has worked exclusively in surrogacy and assisted reproduction law since 1999. Kim is a senior case manager responsible for managing parental establishment cases and interacting with IFLG’s Of Counsel attorneys across the country. With three children of her own, Kim understands the importance of family and finds working in this area of law a rewarding experience.

Rich Vaughn

Attorney Rich Vaughn combined his personal passion as a father of twin boys born via assisted reproductive technology (ART) with more than 20 years of experience in business and technology law to build International Fertility Law Group. Today IFLG is one of the most successful and best-known law firms in the world focused exclusively on fertility law, helping thousands of intended parents through empathetic listening, compassionate guidance, and unmatched legal expertise. As an advocate for reproductive freedom, Rich also contributes his knowledge and time to improving the understanding and practice of ART law, most recently as a founder of and speaker at the first Cambridge University International Surrogacy Symposium held in June 2019, as immediate past chair of the American Bar Association ART Committee, and as a popular presenter to law schools, faculty and advocacy organizations all over the world.

Elizabeth Tamayo

Elizabeth received her Bachelors of Science degree in Criminal Justice from California State University of Los Angeles. Shortly after graduating, she continued her education at the University of California, Los Angeles where she obtained her Paralegal certificate. Elizabeth is fluent in Spanish and has been in the legal field since 2009. She is excited to be a part of the IFLG Team helping families realize their dreams.

Sunny Chien

Sunny joined IFLG as a paralegal in 2017, where she manages surrogacy, egg donation and parental establishment cases for many of IFLG’s international clients. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from California State University of Los Angeles, where she graduated cum laude. Sunny is bilingual in English and Mandarin and has extensive experience as a legal assistant and paralegal at Los Angeles-area law firms. She is excited to be part of the IFLG team. In her spare time, Sunny enjoys spending time with her family and their dog, going to the beach, cooking, and being outdoors.

Los Angeles

5757 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 645

Los Angeles, CA 90036

Phone:  +1 323 331 9343

Email:  info@iflg.net

Website:  www.iflg.net

New York

501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900

New York, NY 10017

Phone:  +1 844 400 2016

Email:  info@iflg.net

Website:  www.iflg.net

Molly O'Brien

Fertility law attorney Molly O’Brien began working in the field of assisted reproduction technology (ART) in 2005, at an egg donation agency and a surrogacy agency where she became familiar with all aspects of in-vitro fertilization, egg donation and the financial aspects of surrogacy. Since becoming an attorney in 2011, Molly has drafted and negotiated surrogacy, egg donation, sperm donation embryo donation agreements for hundreds of her clients all over the world.

Phoebe Sadler

Fertility law attorney Phoebe Sadler has a background in family law and has been practicing exclusively in the area of assisted reproduction technology (ART) law since 2018.

Rubina Aslanyan

Rubina has an extensive background in the legal field as a paralegal in Family Law and has worked in surrogacy and assisted reproduction law since 2012. Her area of focus is in managing and assisting clients with surrogacy, egg donation, and parental establishment cases for many of IFLG’s domestic and international clients. During her spare time, Rubina enjoys spending time with her family and dog Bella, traveling and cooking.

Alexander Espinoza
Legal Assistant

Alexander joined IFLG as a legal assistant in 2019, where he manages surrogacy, egg donation and parental establishment cases. Alex is bilingual in English and Spanish and has been in the legal field for 23 years. Alex is excited to join the IFLG team and pursuing his will to help others in the reproductive law process. In his spare time he loves spending time with his family and friends, being outdoors, road trips, loves music and dancing.

Cara Stecker
Senior Paralegal

After receiving her paralegal certificate in 2005, Cara began working in assisted reproductive law. During the fifteen years Cara has worked in this field, she has gained a wide range of experience and knowledge that she uses to help better assist clients and those involved in the assisted reproductive journey. Cara’s primary roles involve managing parental establishment matters and coordination with IFLG’s Of Counsel attorney network, drafting contracts and parental establishment court documents and providing support to other team members. Cara finds great joy in being a small part of a team of caring people who help others achieve their dream of having a family. In her spare time, Cara enjoys spending time with her husband and three children, watching her children play the sports they love, and she enjoys, running, cycling and exploring the outdoors in the sun.

Stephanie Kimble

Stephanie received her BS in History and Political Thought from Concordia University Irvine in 2015 and her Paralegal Certificate from University of San Diego later that same year. She has been working as a Paralegal since 2016 in Family and Reproductive Law. She is excited to be part of International Fertility Law Group working on managing Surrogacy, Egg donation and Parental Establishment Cases.

Trish Pittman
Assistant Financial Coordinator

With more than 20 years of experience in the field of accounting, Trish joined the IFLG team in 2019 as Assistant Financial Coordinator. Her client-facing focus at IFLG is to assist with all client trust accounting. Trish is the mother of two daughters and enjoys spending time teaching and learning new things from them. In her free time, she loves long walks in the park and reading suspense and mystery novels.

Katie Deaquino
Senior Paralegal

Katie is a Senior Paralegal with IFLG and has dedicated over sixteen years to the areas of surrogacy and reproductive law. She received her Paralegal Certificate from Coastline Community College and has worked with some of the top law firms in the assisted reproduction community. Katie is also a commissioned Notary Public. With IFLG, Katie manages Surrogacy, Egg Donation, and Parental Establishment cases and provides support to other IFLG team members. Katie truly enjoys helping others build their families through assisted reproduction and is thankful she has had the rewarding experience of assisting IFLG clients. Katie often spends her free time with her Husband, four young children and her bulldog “Bella”.

Elsa Jimenez
Legal Assistant

Elsa joined IFLG as a Legal Assistant in 2019, bringing more than 35 years of experience working in the legal profession (concentrating in tort and litigation matters). At IFLG she assists surrogates with their surrogacy and parental matters. The oldest of five siblings, born and raised in East Los Angeles to Mexican immigrant parents, Elsa loves “seeing the beauty of families forming” through assisted reproductive technology. She and her husband Carlos have four children and one grandson. Elsa enjoys jazz and ’80s music, being outdoors in nature, collecting teacups and tea pots, and spending time with her close-knit family.