Your Brain Data Is for Sale, Senators Warn The emerging neurotechnology industry promises a range of benefits by reading and interpreting brain waves, but its practices regarding user data have raised serious concerns. In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Maria Cantwell, and Ed Markey urged an investigation into how neurotech companies handle and potentially profit from the neural data they collect. These senators emphasize that brain data, unlike other types of personal information, can reveal mental health conditions, emotional states, and cognitive patterns, even when anonymized. They warn that such data is both deeply personal and strategically sensitive. One of the primary issues highlighted in the letter is the lack of regulatory oversight in the brain-computer interface (BCI) sector. Medical devices, such as Elon Musk's Neuralink, are subject to stringent data protection standards under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). However, many neurotech products marketed for wellness, such as devices claiming to improve sleep or reduce stress, face far fewer regulations. These non-medical devices often rely on scientifically questionable claims and may not require the same level of user consent for data collection and usage. To illustrate the ambiguity surrounding data protection in the BCI industry, the senators cited a 2024 report from the Neurorights Foundation. This report examined the data policies of 30 consumer-facing neurotech companies and found that 29 of them had the capability to collect user data without significant limitations. Alarmingly, only half of these companies allow users to revoke consent for data processing, and just 14 permit data deletion upon request. Despite the lack of federal regulation, some states have taken steps to protect neural data. Colorado, for instance, expanded the scope of the Colorado Privacy Act last year to include biological data, while California enacted a law in September imposing new privacy requirements on brain data. However, these measures are isolated and do not represent a widespread solution, leaving the regulatory landscape largely uncharted and open to abuse. The senators are urging the FTC to address this issue by expanding data reporting requirements and implementing new safeguards to protect consumers. They propose that neural data should be treated with the same scrutiny and protections as other forms of sensitive personal information. Given the FTC's current staffing challenges and its mixed track record in consumer protection, the effectiveness of such an investigation remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the call for action underscores the growing urgency to regulate this cutting-edge technology and safeguard user privacy. The potential misuse of neural data highlights the need for robust, comprehensive regulations that clarify consent procedures, limit data collection, and provide users with more control over their information. As neurotechnology continues to advance, ensuring ethical and transparent practices will be crucial to maintaining public trust and preventing exploitation.