When Laws Lag Behind Brains: Rethinking Product Liability in the Age of Neurotechnology/Neurotech

In 1987, the UK passed the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) to help shield people from defective toasters, kettles, and faulty cars. It made sense. These were tangible objects with immediate and obvious dangers. But in 2025, we’re not just talking about broken appliances. We’re talking about devices that can rewire your brain, alter your thoughts, and even change your personality.

And that raises a deeply unsettling question:

Is our legal system equipped to handle the invisible, long-term harms posed by neurotechnology?

Spoiler: Not yet.

What Makes Neurotech So Legally Disruptive?

To understand why our legal framework is falling behind, consider three distinct challenges posed by neurotechnology:

1. The Brain’s Plasticity Means Slow, Subtle Damage

Your brain isn’t fixed—it’s always changing. In childhood especially, it’s malleable, constantly reshaping itself in response to new stimuli. This is known as neuroplasticity.

Now imagine a child regularly using a “brain-training” headset. Or a wearable that delivers tiny electrical pulses to improve focus. Even if the product works “as intended,” over time, it might unknowingly disrupt the natural course of brain development. These effects could take years to become noticeable—and when they do, tracing the cause back to the device could be nearly impossible.

Yet under CPA 1987, liability requires a clearly defined “defect” and a visible, measurable harm. That’s perfect for a toaster. But it fails utterly for neurotech’s insidious, cumulative effects.

2. Not All Harms Leave a Mark

Let’s say a brain-computer interface (BCI) doesn’t physically harm you but subtly shifts your decision-making, nudges your preferences, or gradually manipulates your emotional responses.

Is that an injury?

Technically, no. And that’s the problem.

Under current law, the CPA focuses almost exclusively on physical injuries. The slow erosion of mental privacy, or the subtle drift of your cognitive identity, doesn’t qualify—at least not yet.

This gap becomes especially concerning when dealing with vulnerable populations like children, who are disproportionately affected by even low-level neurotechnological exposure.

3. Machine Learning Makes "Defects" a Moving Target

Modern neurotechnology often incorporates machine learning. These systems improve by learning from user data. That means a product may start off making small errors that correct themselves over time.

So what counts as a defect?

If an algorithm makes a bad decision today but corrects itself next week, was it ever defective at all? Or is that just the nature of intelligent, adaptive technology?

The CPA wasn’t built to handle software that evolves, adapts, and rewrites itself. And it certainly doesn’t have a framework for changing definitions of safety and performance after a product is already on the market.

The 10-Year Limit: A Legal Cliff Edge

Even if you could prove a neurodevice caused long-term harm, you’d still hit a legal wall: the CPA includes a 10-year “longstop”. That means if damage appears more than a decade after a product is released—even if that product rewires your brain—you’re out of luck.

With effects that can take decades to surface, this cutoff is catastrophic for users of neurotech.

What Can We Do? Proposals for Reform

Given these shortcomings, a new framework is urgently needed. Here’s what a more future-facing approach might include:

1. Redefine “Defect” to Fit Neurotech

Stop treating defects as one-time faults visible at the moment of sale. Shift toward an understanding that includes delayed effects, cumulative harms, and evolving performance, especially in adaptive systems like AI.

2. Remove the 10-Year Longstop

Long-term neural effects require long-term accountability. Removing the 10-year cap would allow those harmed by slow-developing neurotech side effects to seek justice when the consequences finally emerge.

3. Abandon Consumer Expectations as a Metric

The law currently asks: “What would people generally expect of this product?” But in a world of rapid, exponential tech advancement, expectations are meaningless. Who could have expected, in 2003, that Facebook would one day shape elections or that wearables might track your emotions?

We need objective safety standards, not vague guesses about what consumers expect.

4. Mandate Full Disclosure of Uncertainties

Manufacturers should be legally required to disclose even uncertain or emerging risks—not just the ones they already understand. That means sharing not only known side effects but potential long-term impacts based on current research.

5. Create Distinct Rules for Medical vs. Non-Medical Neurotech

Therapeutic devices carry different stakes than consumer gadgets. For example, a patient with a terminal illness may accept the risks of experimental neurostimulation. But a healthy teen using a memory-enhancing app? The bar must be higher.

6. Recognize New Categories of Harm

Mental manipulation, identity shifts, and behavioral nudges should be legally recognized harms, even if they don’t result in visible injury. Just because a wound is psychological doesn’t mean it’s not real—or serious.

The Bigger Picture: Ethics, Autonomy & the Brain

Let’s not forget the ethical minefield we’re in. Neurotechnologies can influence your self-perception, decision-making, and autonomy.

A law that only looks for bruises or burns is dangerously blind to the brain’s invisible scars.

We must build a legal framework that respects mental privacy, protects against cognitive manipulation, and holds companies accountable for how their products affect not just the body—but the mind and soul.

Final Thoughts: The Price of Inaction

Neurotechnology is racing ahead—and rightly so. The potential for treating disease, enhancing cognition, and improving human potential is staggering. But without robust legal safeguards, we risk crossing a line where our thoughts, behaviors, and choices are no longer entirely our own.

The question isn’t whether we need reform. The question is: can we afford to wait?

Let’s ensure innovation remains a tool for empowerment—not exploitation.

At Cerebralink, we’re committed to supporting ethical neurotech development and helping institutions navigate this evolving regulatory frontier. If you’re a policymaker, legal professional, or tech innovator seeking guidance, we’re here to help.