Bryan Johnson, the founder of Braintree and Venmo and the leader of the “Don’t Die” movement, has gained widespread recognition for his groundbreaking work in the longevity field. He spends over $2 million annually on rigorous self-experimentation, pushing the boundaries of human health and lifespan extension. However, even with his focus on longevity and scientific advancement, Johnson recognizes the critical importance of data privacy and obtaining opt-in consent—a topic we recently explored at Captain Compliance.
His company, Continuance LLC, has garnered significant media attention. However, Johnson recently suggested on X.com that The New York Times may be preparing a hit piece about him that involves opt in, consent, and privacy matters. He shared messages sent from a reporter from the Times that the story would involve the opt-in language and confidentiality agreements used by his longevity business, raising questions about how data privacy and consent are managed in his operations.
The opt-in agreement for his company is pictured below and written out in full for our data privacy readers to interpret.
The exact text of Bryan’s Tweet is below. If you find yourself needing help with determining proper opt-in and opt-out language as well as needing help with Data Subject Access Requests and Consent Management we are here to help.
Opt-In Agreement Regarding Continuance, LLC
Continuance LLC dba Blueprint Bryan Johnson (“Continuance”) works to improve the health and wellness of all intelligent life and prepare H. sapiens for the next evolutionary advance. Bryan Johnson has been the primary subject of the Blueprint protocol and is integral to the trade secrets and confidential information of Continuance, with portions shared and accessible via in-person gatherings, online software/communications apps (such as Signal and Slack), and virtual meetings/communications, all limited to the Continuance team.
In addition, while working for Continuance, you will also have access to the confidential discussions and processes involved with drafting, reviewing, revising, and commenting on draft communications, photos, etc., before they are posted on Bryan Johnson’s and/or Continuance’s social media presence.
Continuance also recognizes that every individual’s comfort level may be different, and so it wants to ensure that employees are fully aware of what to expect from their employment and know they can opt out of any experience that makes them uncomfortable at any time.
For transparency, this Opt-In Agreement Regarding Continuance LLC (“Opt-In Agreement”) is being provided to all employees to ensure they understand what working at Continuance entails. While the work described here is necessary in order for Continuance to continue its research and innovation, it is important to us that employees are not surprised by their working environment, tasks, or language used in the workplace.
Please make sure to read this Opt-In Agreement in its entirety, ask any questions you may have, and if you agree that you would like to work in this environment, please sign and provide the date of your signature (the “Effective Date”) below.
So this caused a little bit of a Tweetstorm as reposted below:
Question from the New York Times Reporter: “… I’m interested in the use of your “opt-in” agreement at Blueprint. This agreement, of which I’ve seen a copy, makes employees attest that they are okay with a wide range of unusual workplace behavior, and that they don’t find it “abusive” or “unprofessional.” Some people we have spoken to said they felt coerced into signing it because they might lose their jobs if they don’t, and outside lawyers we have spoken to described it as unorthodox. Can you explain why you have used this document for employees?” Answer: I post nudes on social media. I track my nighttime erections. My team openly discusses my semen health. We make dank memes. Rather than letting people walk in blind, we disclose this upfront, in writing, so there are no surprises. This isn’t coercion; it’s transparency. This practice is fair to all concerned and is in everyone’s best interest. If someone doesn’t align with our culture, they are free to work elsewhere. No one is forced to sign anything. The opt-in agreement exists to ensure that people understand and consent to the environment. It eliminates ambiguity and prevents misunderstandings. Reader’s note: Here, the reporter’s question was designed to frame Blueprint’s workplace culture as inappropriate, coercive, and legally questionable while appearing neutral. She used loaded language (“unusual behavior,” “abusive,” “unprofessional”) to plant the idea that something is wrong, even without evidence. By citing anonymous employees who “felt coerced” and “outside lawyers” calling it “unorthodox,” she implied ethical and legal concerns without providing concrete proof. This tactic relies on suggestion rather than fact, subtly encouraging readers to view Blueprint’s transparency agreement as problematic, rather than a straightforward disclosure of workplace culture.
A few law firms are going around suing for data privacy violations. Swigart being the most prominent but also Almeida Law is litigating against healthcare companies for millions of dollars for Meta-Pixel violations.
