Neurotechnologies are devices that have been used in the clinical context for decades to collect data about brain or nervous system activity. Examples include the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose brain tumors, electroencephalograms (EEG) to predict strokes, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
In addition to the clinical context, the consumer market now accounts for 60% of the global neurotechnology landscape. By 2034, the global neurotechnology market size is predicted to reach around $52.86 billion. Neuralink, a company founded by Elon Musk, creates implantable brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), which are used to restore personal control over limbs, prosthetics, and communication devices. Other consumer neurotechnologies include EEG headsets that produce real-time brain data and earbuds that measure brain activity from the ear canal.
Several issues are raised by the use of neural data in both the clinical and consumer sectors. The production, distribution, and use of these neurotechnologies creates unique privacy, discrimination, and security concerns. There have even been efforts in the criminal justice system to identify deception from brain activity. Scholars have proposed and debated the necessity of a new category of rights called “neurorights,” which include mental privacy, mental integrity, and cognitive liberty.
In response to these growing concerns, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) recently introduced the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025 (the MIND Act). This bill aims to protect Americans’ brain data from exploitation and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The MIND Act defines neural data as “information obtained by measuring the activity of an individual’s central or peripheral nervous system through the use of neurotechnology.” It also provides an expansive definition of neurotechnology as any “device, system, or procedure that assesses, monitors, records, analyzes, predicts, stimulates or alters the nervous system of an individual to understand, influence, restore, or anticipate the structure, activity, or function of the nervous system.” This definition encompasses basic tools like MRI and EEG, but also covers BCIs and consumer products like smart glasses and smart watches.
The proposed legislation directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to study how neural data and other related data, which can infer psychological states or neurological conditions, are currently governed. It also compels the FTC to identify gaps in current governing frameworks, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). At the federal level, HIPAA defines health information expansively, but likely fails to protect neural data in several clinical contexts.
At the state level, neural data is not clearly included in most consumer privacy laws. In response to this, Colorado, California, Montana, and Connecticut have led the way by passing privacy laws that categorize neural data as highly sensitive information. If passed, the MIND Act would establish a federal standard that follows in these states’ footsteps.
While it does not go so far as to create a new private right of action, the MIND Act does create a roadmap for future FTC rulemaking or broader privacy legislation. It may also play an important role in healthcare product development as neurotechnology and AI are integrated and developed in tandem. Perhaps more importantly, it is a clear message from Congress about the importance of privacy protections in an ever-changing technological landscape.