HFEA 'concerned' about unregulated sperm donation

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has issued a new set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about unregulated sperm donation, due to increasing concerns regarding exploitation and serial sperm donors.

The FAQs cover the UK regulations around sperm donation, what constitutes unregulated practices and some of the legal, health and emotional implications for prospective recipients and potential offspring. The HFEA, the UK's independent regulator of fertility treatment and human embryo research, 'is concerned that apps, websites, or social media sites helping exploitative or serial sperm donors expose people to serious medical, legal, and emotional risks'.

Clare Ettinghausen, director of strategy and corporate affairs at the HFEA told the Standard: 'These prolific unregulated donors are very public, some of them are running Facebook groups, they're not hiding. None of it's a secret, they're very transparent about what they're doing.'

Demand for unregulated online sperm donation has been growing amid increased media attention. Recent research found that 343,422 users were active across 52 English-language platforms for private sperm donors, far outweighing the 5500 insemination cycles that took place through licensed UK clinics in 2023. Motivations include avoiding a highly medicalised route, a greater choice of donors (in particular for ethnic minorities), and facilitating alternative family arrangements (see BioNews 1307).

'In the UK, many groups are effectively excluded from the official system,' Sofie Hafström Nielsen, chief executive of donor app Y factor said: 'For them, it's not finding a loophole to bypass regulation, it's often the only possible path' (see BioNews 1297).

NHS-funded access to IVF is limited and subject to strict eligibility criteria, with same-sex couples and single women facing additional burdens. For those paying out-of-pocket, the price can often be prohibitive: a single vial of sperm costs around £1000 and one cycle of intrauterine insemination reaches between £800 and £1600.

However, Professor Tim Child, HFEA board member and associate professor of reproductive medicine at the University of Oxford, warned that sourcing sperm privately online 'cut[s] corners and expose[s] people to serious medical, legal and emotional risks.'

The FAQs highlight the potential impact on the health of the recipients and future children, as private donors do not undergo mandatory screening for infectious or genetic diseases. In addition, it stresses that unregulated donors can demand legal parenthood of children conceived via this route – prolific UK donor Robert Charles Albon, for example, tried to later claim parental responsibility over children he fathered (see BioNews 1336, 1289, 1281 and 1277).

Serial donations also increase the likelihood of genetically related children in the same area unknowingly entering relationships. Another key risk is donors coercing recipients into 'natural insemination' (sexual intercourse).

The FAQs make clear that for-profit sperm donation outside of licensed clinics is illegal, yet Meta and other 'big tech' companies continue to allow donors to advertise their services on their platforms. This inaction is 'facilitating these people breaking the law', said Ettinghausen, 'and they should do something about it.'

Aspects of donor conception and related risks will be discussed at this month's PET event Donor Conception and Genetic Disease: Lessons to Be Learned from Donor 7069, taking place online on Wednesday 24 June 2026.

Find out more and register here.