Brain signals are joining the ranks of personal data that lawmakers want to protect. Senators Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer, and Ed Markey introduced the MIND Act of 2025, the first federal legislation aimed at protecting Americans’ neural data from commercial misuse and exploitation. As neurotechnology advances, the bill positions brain activity as information too sensitive to be governed by existing privacy laws alone.

The proposal tasks the Federal Trade Commission with defining how neural data should be collected, stored, and safeguarded. The move comes as neurotechnology shifts from research labs into the consumer market, with dozens of commercial products launched in recent years and Big Tech increasingly entering the space. What was once a niche area of clinical research is fast becoming a frontier of consumer electronics, and with it, a new arena for privacy risks.

The MIND Act of 2025

Introduced on September 25, the Mind, Information, Neurodata, and Devices Act, or MIND Act, seeks to create a federal standard for how brain-derived data can be collected and used. The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to identify existing gaps in U.S. privacy law, establish guardrails for companies working with neural signals, and issue recommendations on enforcement. It marks the first coordinated attempt to recognize brain activity as a distinct and protected data class.

The legislation defines “neurotechnology” broadly, encompassing medical devices, consumer headsets, and other systems designed to access or analyze activity from the central or peripheral nervous system. Companies would be required to obtain informed consent, limit secondary uses such as resale or targeted advertising, and provide transparency on how neural data is stored or shared. Individuals would also gain rights to opt out and request deletion.

Senators backing the bill framed the risks in stark terms. Majority Leader Schumer warned that unregulated neurotech could “open the door to manipulation of people’s thoughts and decisions,” while Senator Cantwell emphasized the need to act “before these technologies become ubiquitous.” The proposal builds on state-level precedents in Colorado, California, and Montana, but would extend protections nationwide for the first time.

Why Neural Data Is Different

Unlike browsing history or GPS location, neural data reflects increasingly detailed patterns of thought, mood, and intent. Even relatively low-resolution recordings, such as EEG from headbands or electromyography at the wrist, can be analyzed to infer cognitive states or predict health conditions.

Recent work at Stanford has gone further, showing that brain-computer interfaces can decode inner speech, phrases a person silently repeats to themselves, demonstrating that signals once considered private can be made legible to machines. For policymakers, findings like these strengthen the case that neural activity deserves explicit safeguards, comparable to genetic information and biometric identifiers.

Existing U.S. privacy frameworks, however, are poorly equipped for this shift. HIPAA governs patient records within healthcare systems but does not extend to consumer neurotech. State-level data laws vary widely, and only a handful, such as Colorado and California, have begun to address neural data protection directly.

This patchwork leaves a gray zone where brain signals collected by wellness apps, gaming devices, or workplace monitors can be stored, resold, or repurposed with minimal oversight. The MIND Act is designed to close that gap before thought-level data becomes just another commodity in the digital economy.

Analysis: Implications and Risks

For startups and researchers, the MIND Act could cut both ways. On one hand, federal standards would provide much-needed clarity in a space where uncertainty around data handling can deter investors and slow adoption. On the other hand, compliance requirements, consent protocols, deletion rights, and audit trails could place new burdens on small companies already operating with tight resources. Whether regulation becomes a barrier or a trust-building asset may depend on how flexibly the rules are implemented.

Consumers stand to gain the most direct protections. With commercial neurotech devices proliferating, users currently have little visibility into how their brain data is stored or monetized. Clearer guardrails could build confidence at a moment when skepticism about privacy is high. Yet there is also the risk that overly broad restrictions might slow progress in healthcare, where access to a new domain of consumer neural data can greatly accelerate treatment development for conditions like epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease.

Big Tech’s entry into the field raises the stakes further. Meta’s recent Neural Band, a wrist-worn interface that decodes motor intent, illustrates how quickly advanced signal decoding is moving from lab prototypes into mass consumer ecosystems. With companies of this scale, the potential for mass data harvesting multiplies, as does the influence of their privacy practices. The MIND Act reflects a recognition that once neural signals are embedded in everyday devices, regulation cannot lag behind.

A Global Turning Point

The U.S. is not alone in grappling with the governance of brain data. Chile amended its constitution in 2021 to enshrine “neurorights,” while the European Union’s AI Act has opened initial debates about how cognitive and emotional data should be classified within risk frameworks. Several U.S. states, including Colorado and California, have also begun to recognize neural data as a distinct category within privacy law. The MIND Act would be the first attempt to unify these protections at the federal level, signaling that brain signals are a matter of national policy.