Senate Bill Aims to Safeguard Privacy for Brain Wave Data

The emergence of brain waves and related neural data as a significant concern in consumer privacy has prompted a group of U.S. Senate Democrats to introduce legislation intended to combat potential exploitation of such data. This initiative is aimed at anticipating risks associated with how brain-centric data may be collected and used by technology companies, data brokers, and government entities.

The Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025, commonly referred to as the MIND Act, was presented by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, along with co-sponsors Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass. The proposed legislation emphasizes the need for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the protection of neural data and related biometric and behavioral information as neurotechnology rapidly progresses.

The senators highlighted that numerous consumer devices are currently collecting sensitive brain-related data with minimal regulatory oversight. Neural data, including signals from brain implants, has the potential to disclose individuals’ thoughts, emotions, and decision-making processes. This data could be exploited by third parties, heightening risks related to consumer manipulation and national security threats.

“Our mental states represent the ‘final frontier’ of privacy concerns,” stated Eric Null, co-director of the Privacy and Data Program at the Center for Democracy & Technology. He noted that emergent technologies must not operate within an unregulated environment akin to the “Wild West.” The legislation reflects a growing concern that companies are driven to harness this data to predict and influence consumer behavior.

Clarifying the need for awareness around neural data privacy, Null pointed out that while neural data may be protected under HIPAA in clinical scenarios, data harvested from consumer products lacks such protection. It primarily falls under the FTC’s general authority regarding unfair and deceptive practices, necessitating enhanced safeguards.

Calli Schroeder of the Electronic Privacy Information Center described the MIND Act as a “good start” in recognizing the inherent risks of neurotechnology. However, she argued that the act primarily serves as a mechanism to initiate further research rather than establishing concrete regulations, potentially delaying the implementation of essential protections for individuals.

States have been proactive in addressing neural data protections, with Colorado leading the way in 2024, followed by California, Connecticut, and Montana. Regulatory expert Rachel Rose emphasized the growing urgency for Congress to act, as rapid technological advancements necessitate a responsive legislative framework. Colorado’s definition of neural data encompasses various metrics generated from both central and peripheral nervous system activities, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

The MIND Act seeks to introduce regulatory boundaries to enhance privacy protections surrounding neural data, with senators expressing the need to strike a balance between innovation and consumer safety. Schumer emphasized the potential for misuse of brain activity data, calling for regulations that prioritize ethical practices in technology usage.

As companies like Neuralink—pioneered by Elon Musk—conduct clinical trials on innovative neurotechnology, attention to safeguards for neural data becomes increasingly pertinent. This device, designed to allow users to control technology through neural activity, exemplifies the urgent need for clear regulations to prevent exploitation.

The upsurge in interest surrounding neural data privacy has drawn attention from various jurisdictions, illustrating a global trend toward legislative action aimed at mitigating risks associated with emerging technologies. With the FTC tasked to examine neural data privacy, it becomes imperative for U.S. businesses to stay informed about potential strategies and guidelines related to this evolving landscape.