Neurorights and Consumer Neurotechnologies: Ethics at a Crossroads

As neurotechnology moves beyond the clinical domain and into consumer markets, the concept of neurorights becomes increasingly important. These rights, while still being defined, relate to how technologies capable of monitoring or influencing brain activity intersect with personal agency, consent, and societal impact.

This post explores a Consumer Neurotechnologies session, where our CEO Ana Maiques addressed the challenges and responsibilities tied to this shift. Drawing on our experience in developing non-invasive brain stimulation systems, Ana emphasized the tension between innovation, ethical use, and the increasing demand for at-home solutions.

As wearable neurotechnologies become more prevalent, so does the urgency to address who controls these tools, how they are regulated, and what obligations companies have in protecting users.

Building Ethical Consumer Neurotechnologies Around Neurorights

Consumer-oriented devices now aim to influence attention, mood, or cognition. These products often operate outside clinical frameworks, particularly when no medical claims are made. This creates a regulatory and ethical gray zone.

Clinical applications, such as the use of transcranial electrical stimulation in treating epilepsy, require extensive oversight and validation. When similar technologies are used in consumer settings, however, the long-term effects and scientific foundations may be less clear.

Neurorights may offer a conceptual structure for considering responsibility in development, handling of data, and the potential influence of stimulation on user behavior or perception.

Neurotechnology Data and the Limits of Regulation

Devices that monitor or stimulate the brain collect sensitive data and may alter neural activity. One of the most urgent concerns raised during the session was how companies manage the data they collect and whether consumers are fully informed about what is being captured or used.

California’s recent legislation, introduced by Josh Becker (California State Senator; Author, The California Neurorights Act), begins to address this by categorizing brain data as sensitive under state privacy law. This grants consumers specific rights, including knowing what data is collected, limiting its use, and requesting its deletion. However, enforcement across jurisdictions remains a challenge, especially as devices proliferate globally and users turn to products that are marketed outside traditional health contexts.

The complexity of regulating neurotechnologies underscores the importance of embedding neurorights in privacy and data governance frameworks.

Clinical Insights on Neurorights and Access

One case presented by Ana Maiques illustrates the real-world ethical dilemmas facing neurotechnology developers. A participant’s family, impressed by observed improvements during a clinical trial, directly requested access to an unapproved device. While the request was declined due to regulatory restrictions, the family later acquired a do-it-yourself brain stimulation system through online sources.

This scenario reflects a broader issue. As more individuals experiment with neurostimulation for non-medical purposes, often without understanding the underlying mechanisms or risks, the line between clinical therapy and personal experimentation becomes increasingly blurred.

Institutional Perspectives on Policy, Practice, and Trust

Tim Engelhardt (Senior Legal Advisor, UN OHCHR), emphasized that the implications of neurotechnology extend well beyond the clinical or consumer domains. The integration of these tools into education, employment, and even political life raises systemic questions about how societies manage autonomy and equality.

He noted that neurorights must be understood in a broader human rights framework, including rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and protection from discrimination. Engelhardt stressed the need for a "smart mix" of regulatory strategies—combining legal, technical, and policy tools—to address the varied risks posed by neurotechnologies. He also called attention to the need for enforcement mechanisms and standardization bodies with adequate resources.

The panelists agreed that transparency, technical validation, and inter-sector collaboration are necessary to maintain public trust as neurotechnologies become more widespread.

Conclusion

As the field of neurotechnology expands, protecting users requires more than just compliance; it demands a commitment to thoughtful and transparent innovation that aligns with the principles of neurorights. Neurotechnologies are increasingly entering the consumer market with various wearable products designed to collect brain data or enhance cognitive functions.

This trend raises significant questions about innovation, privacy, and consumer autonomy. It is essential to take urgent action regarding how these technologies influence brain activity. Various stakeholders—such as regulators, industry leaders, and consumers—have vital roles in ensuring responsible development and protecting human rights in the realm of mental augmentation. By examining existing practices and gaps in consumer neurotechnology, we can guide future developments that prioritize the protection of human rights.

At Neuroelectrics, we are dedicated to developing safe and regulated solutions while encouraging a wider conversation about the ethical use of brain-related technologies. If you're interested in learning more about our devices, click here.

References:

• Mental Augmentation: A New Frontier for Human Rights