On September 24, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data (“MIND”) Act of 2025, which would require the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to conduct a study and provide a report examining the governance of “neural data” under existing law and identify additional areas for federal regulation.  The bill would also require the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”) to issue guidance regarding federal agencies’ use of certain neurotechnology.

The MIND Act is primarily focused on “neural data,” defined as “information obtained by measuring the activity of an individual’s central or peripheral nervous system through the use of neurotechnology.” “Neurotechnology” in turn is “a device, system, or procedure that accesses, monitors, records, analyzes, predicts, stimulates or alters the nervous system of an individual to understand, influence, restore, or anticipate the structure, activity, or function of the nervous system.”  However, a number of requirements in the bill would also apply to “other related data,” which includes information such as “biometric, physiological, or behavioral information . . . that can be processed, analyzed, or combined with other data to infer predict, or reveal cognitive, emotional, or psychological states or neurological conditions” and “may include heart rate variability, eye-tracking patterns, voice analysis, facial expression recognition, sleep patterns, or other signals derived from consumer devices, wearables, or biosensors.”

Under the MIND Act, the FTC’s study would be required to examine how neural and other related data is governed and gaps under existing law related to such data (including, for example, under HIPAA, COPPA, and the FTC Act), examine how the data is handled by the government and companies, identify potential harms and security risks from the misuse of neural data and other related data, highlight best practices in privacy and security, and identify areas for further regulation of neural data and other related data, among others.  The bill also anticipates the FTC report making recommendations for incentive structures to promote ethical innovation in neurotechnology, including tying voluntary standards with business incentives, and regulatory sandbox mechanisms to enable early-stage neural data applications to be tested.  The FTC would be required to consult representatives from federal agencies, industry, academia, advocacy groups, and others as part of this report.

The bill would also require OSTP, in consultation with the FTC and the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance within 180 days of the FTC report, defining prohibited, permissible, and conditional use cases for neurotechnology in federal operations, safeguards for each use case, and transparency requirements.

The bill would require the FTC to annually update the information in the report and would prohibit federal agencies from utilizing neurotechnology that processes neural data in ways that are “inconsistent” with the FTC’s findings and guidance developed by OSTP.

As part of the bill, the sponsors note that “it is the sense of Congress” that strong protections for neural data “are essential to safeguard privacy, prevent discrimination and exploitation, and ensure that innovation in neurotechnology applications proceeds with accountability and public trust.”  The bill sponsors reference Colorado, California, Montana, and Connecticut as states that have already passed laws on neural data and signal this bill’s intent to develop a federal standard to protect this data.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws.

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws. She routinely supports clients on their efforts to launch new products and services involving emerging technologies, and she has assisted dozens of clients with their efforts to prepare for and comply with federal and state laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Colorado AI Act, and other state laws. As part of her practice, she also regularly represents clients in strategic transactions involving personal data, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence risk and represents clients in enforcement and litigation postures.

Libbie represents clients across industries, but she also has deep expertise in advising clients in highly-regulated sectors, including financial services and digital health companies. She counsels these companies — and their technology and advertising partners — on how to address legacy regulatory issues and the cutting edge issues that have emerged with industry innovations and data collaborations.

Chambers USA 2025 ranks Libbie in Band 3 Nationwide for both Privacy & Data Security: Privacy and Privacy & Data Security: Healthcare. Chambers USA notes, Libbie is “incredibly sharp and really thorough. She can do the nitty-gritty, in-the-weeds legal work incredibly well but she also can think of a bigger-picture business context and help to think through practical solutions.”

Photo of Elizabeth Brim Elizabeth Brim

Elizabeth Brim is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where she is a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity and Health Care Practice Groups and advises clients on a broad range of regulatory and compliance issues related to privacy and…

Elizabeth Brim is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where she is a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity and Health Care Practice Groups and advises clients on a broad range of regulatory and compliance issues related to privacy and health care.

Elizabeth’s practice includes counseling clients on compliance with the complex web of health information privacy laws and regulations, such as HIPAA, the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule, and state medical and consumer health privacy laws as well as state consumer privacy and genetic privacy laws. She also advises clients on health care compliance issues, such as fraud and abuse, market access, and pricing and reimbursement activities.

Elizabeth routinely advises on regulatory compliance as part of transactions, clinical trial programs, collaborations and other activities that involve genetic data, and the development and operation of digital health products. As part of her practice, Elizabeth routinely counsels clients on drafting and negotiating privacy and health care terms with vendors and third parties and developing privacy notices and consent forms. In addition, Elizabeth maintains an active pro bono practice.

Elizabeth is an author of the American Health Law Association treatise, Pricing, Market Access, and Reimbursement Principles: Drugs, Biologicals and Medical Devices and the U.S. chapter of the Global Legal Insights treatise, Pricing & Reimbursement Laws and Regulations.

Photo of Natalie Maas Natalie Maas

Natalie is an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office, where she is a member of the Food, Drug, and Device, and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She advises pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, and food companies on a broad range of regulatory…

Natalie is an associate in the firm’s San Francisco office, where she is a member of the Food, Drug, and Device, and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She advises pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, and food companies on a broad range of regulatory and compliance issues.

Natalie also maintains an active pro bono practice, with a particular focus on health care and reproductive rights.