Since 2024, several U.S. states have passed laws to protect a brand-new type of data: neural data — the electrical activity of the brain, captured by consumer headsets and implants. Five states already have such laws. The fact is real and dated. But it does not mean what many read into it.
Other states (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, New York) have bills under review. And beyond the United States, Chile was the first country to write the protection of mental integrity into its Constitution, back in 2021.
In September 2025, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, together with Senators Maria Cantwell and Ed Markey, introduced the MIND Act: it directs the FTC (the federal consumer-protection agency) to study how neural data should be regulated. To date, the bill has not cleared committee — so there is still no federal U.S. law on the subject.
[DOCUMENTED FACT] Chile is the world's neurorights laboratory. In October 2021, Law No. 21,383 amended the Constitution to enshrine the protection of brain activity and mental integrity in the face of neurotechnologies — a world first, championed in particular by Senator Guido Girardi with the support of neuroscientists such as Rafael Yuste (Columbia University).
[DOCUMENTED FACT] This framework has already produced case law: in August 2023, the Chilean Supreme Court ruled in favour of Guido Girardi against the neurotechnology company Emotiv, maker of a consumer EEG headset, ordering the deletion of his brain data and stricter oversight of its processing. It is the first supreme court decision in the world dealing specifically with neural data — a fact, not an anticipation.
[DOCUMENTED FACT] Even before national laws, the OECD adopted in December 2019 its Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology — the field's first international instrument, which notably establishes the protection of personal brain data and vigilance over non-medical uses.
In Europe, there is not yet a dedicated law: neural data currently falls under the GDPR, as personal data and, depending on context, as health or biometric data — "sensitive" categories whose processing is strictly regulated. Data protection authorities, including France's CNIL, have published forward-looking work on neurotechnologies, and UNESCO has begun drafting a global recommendation on their ethics. [CORRELATION] The convergence of these initiatives — the Americas, the OECD, UNESCO — outlines an emerging consensus: brain signals are not data like any other.
[DOCUMENTED FACT] The vocabulary of neurorights has a precise academic origin: in 2017, researchers Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno proposed four new rights in the face of neurotechnologies — cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity and psychological continuity. [HYPOTHESIS] Part of legal scholarship nevertheless disputes the need for new rights, arguing that existing rights (privacy, integrity of the person) suffice if properly applied. The debate is open; US state laws, for their part, have chosen the pragmatic route: extending existing data protection laws.
The trigger is not science fiction: it is the market. Consumer EEG headsets, earbuds and rings with sensors, implants (Neuralink) — more and more devices measure nervous-system activity, and those signals can reveal emotional state, attention level, sometimes medical conditions. Lawmakers are anticipating, before the practice becomes widespread.
The real issue connects with cognitive warfare and brain-computer interfaces: as technology learns to read signals from the brain, the question is no longer "can my thoughts be read" (no), but "who owns the signals of my brain, and to do what with them." Neurorights are the first legal answer to that question.
A set of legal protections for neural data (the activity of the nervous system captured by devices) and for mental integrity. Five US states have voted them in since 2024.
Five in 2026: Colorado, California, Montana, Connecticut and Vermont. Others (Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, New York) have bills under review.
Not yet. The MIND Act, introduced by Chuck Schumer in September 2025, asks the FTC to study the question; it has not passed the committee stage.
No. Neural data can reveal an emotional state or a level of attention, but not decipher specific thoughts. The laws adopted are preventive; they anticipate neurotechnology.
Chile, since 2021 — the first country in the world to have done so.
Dossier : Guerre cognitive & neuro-armes
MINI16: La Sanctuarisation Biologique
Accueil · Collection · Journal · Dossiers · Sources