Neural Noise

MIND Act: consumer neural data protection

2 min read

  • The MIND Act proposes federal protections for consumer neural data, reflecting growing neurorights policy momentum.1
  • Regulatory frameworks for neural data privacy are increasingly relevant for consumer BCI and neurotechnology companies.1 1

Weekly enrichment (2026-07-20)

  • The MIND Act’s full title is the “Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025,” introduced in the U.S. Senate as S. 2925 on September 29, 2025, and referred to committee as the first stage of the legislative process.2 3
  • It was introduced by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Ed Markey (D-MA); the operative mechanism directs the Federal Trade Commission, not new private-sector mandates, to study governance of neural and related data.4 5
  • The bill does not create a new federal regulatory scheme or impose obligations on businesses or researchers; it requires the FTC to study neural-data collection, use, storage, transfer, and processing, identify legal gaps, and recommend best practices.4 5
  • The FTC would work in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the FDA, other federal agencies, and stakeholders from industry, academia, civil society, consumer advocacy, labor, and clinical research, and must submit a report to Congress within one year (repeated annually).4 5
  • The Act would allocate the FTC $10 million for the work, and after the report OSTP would develop guidance governing federal agency use of neurotechnology.5
  • The bill’s scope explicitly covers both implanted brain-computer interfaces and consumer wearables such as headbands, earbuds, helmets, and wristbands that detect central or peripheral nervous-system activity.5
  • The Sense of Congress states neural data “can be monetized and used to shape individual behavior, emotional states, and decision making” in ways existing laws (including HIPAA) do not adequately address, citing risks of discrimination, profiling, surveillance, manipulation, and misuse.2 3
  • Context: no comprehensive U.S. federal neural-data law exists, but four states have already acted — Colorado (H.B. 24-1058, effective August 7, 2024, opt-in consent plus data-protection assessments), California (S.B. 1223 amending the CCPA, effective January 1, 2025, treating neural data as sensitive personal information under an opt-out model), Montana (S.B. 163), and Connecticut (S.B. 1295, opt-in).6

Footnotes

  1. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiswFBVV95cUxQZDhWRE5MWUx2OFB5c25sS0FpcllhaXhUTk94ZGVhNTNJcnJ2UDBUZjZVVFc1d2loZjZsYVZoV05zaWJER1JwYy1sdmNQOHRuTE5RTmVGSGliSmZQM3pic1BTbllEM3JiZ0ttOFRKeFktWWgwRDEydDFJY0ZFZ2F5a21jbVVTVEt4TnpucVBOMXJzMFpEbkloUXVRNGtGZ014cngwMGxsdUZaQUNBWEJ3NGV3UQ?oc=5 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s2925 ↩ ↩2

  3. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s2925/BILLS-119s2925is.pdf ↩ ↩2

  4. https://www.dwt.com/blogs/privacy—security-law-blog/2025/10/senate-mind-act-neural-data-ftc-regulation ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-09-25-the-mind-act-balancing-innovation-and-privacy-in-neurotechnology ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  6. https://fpf.org/blog/the-neural-data-goldilocks-problem-defining-neural-data-in-u-s-state-privacy-laws/ ↩

Graph View