# MIND Act **Entity class:** Proposed legislation **Domain:** Neural Data Governance / United States Federal Policy **Doc Type:** Policy Node **Maturity:** Introduced, no committee action **Collection:** [[collections/Neurotech|Neurotech]] **Primary Sources:** [[research/Research Inferences|Research Inferences]] (INF-0279) ## Definition **The MIND Act, formally the Management of Individuals' Neural Data Act of 2025 (S.2925), is the first federal bill addressing neural data, announced on 24 September 2025 by Senators Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer and Ed Markey and introduced on 29 September 2025.** It directs the Federal Trade Commission to study how neural data and related data are collected, used, stored and transferred, and to recommend a protection framework. It also directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy to issue guidance on federal agencies' use of certain neurotechnology. As of this scan it has seen no committee markup, floor vote or passage. ## What it covers - **Neural data** is defined as information obtained by measuring the activity of an individual's central or peripheral nervous system through the use of neurotechnology. - **Related data** covers biometric, physiological and behavioral information. - **Scope** reaches implanted brain-computer interfaces and wearable neurotechnology alike: headbands, earbuds, helmets and wristbands. ## Reading A study mandate is the legislative form of deferral, and deferral at the federal level cedes the field to state law and to industry practice. Four states had already amended their privacy statutes to cover neural data before this bill was announced: California, Colorado, Connecticut and Montana, with Connecticut's amendment effective 1 July 2026. Because California and Colorado chose opposite default rules in the same year, one opt-out and one consent-first, a harmonization fight and a federal preemption argument were already guaranteed. The register's marker for that outcome is federal preemption of state neural-data law, with the count of enacted state statutes as the leading indicator. ## Open Questions - Whether the bill advances out of the Senate Commerce Committee. - Whether a future version carries substantive rules rather than a study mandate. - Whether the FTC acts on neural data under existing authority before any statute passes. ## Research Inferences These entries translate the forward-looking register in [[research/Research Inferences|Research Inferences]] into ordinary wiki prose. The tier labels apply to the inference, not automatically to every factual anchor inside it. Proposed IDs above INF-0500 come from the 2026-10-23 cycle: [[research/Research Inferences Integration Report - 2026-10-23|Research Inferences Integration Report — 2026-10-23]] · [[research/Research Inferences Integration Audit - 2026-10-23|Research Inferences Integration Audit — 2026-10-23]]. - **INF-0279 — Established.** The MIND Act would direct the FTC to study neural data and recommend a framework, and it has not advanced beyond committee. A study mandate is the legislative form of deferral, and deferral at the federal level cedes the field to state law and to industry practice. - **INF-0276 — Established.** California classifies neural data as sensitive personal information with an opt-out right, and uniquely reaches employee data as well as consumer data. Employment coverage is the provision with the widest practical effect, because the workplace is where non-consensual neural monitoring is most likely to be normalized. - **INF-0277 — Established.** Colorado placed neural data inside a broader "biological data" category requiring consent, taking a consent-first rather than opt-out approach. Two adjacent states chose opposite default rules in the same year, which guarantees a harmonization fight and a federal preemption argument. - **INF-0278 — Established.** Connecticut's neural-data amendment took effect 1 July 2026, extending consent requirements to central nervous system measurements. Each additional state raises compliance cost for a national product, and compliance cost is what eventually produces a federal standard. - **INF-0282 — Analytic.** California's definition excludes data inferred from non-neural sources, which leaves behavioral inference of mental state entirely unregulated by the neural-data provisions. Every commercial system that wants mental-state information will be built on the permitted side of that line. - **INF-0483 — Plausible.** Federal preemption of state neural-data law is the marker that the compliance burden reached the threshold where industry prefers one rule to fifty. Watch the number of enacted state statutes as the leading indicator. ## Relationships - **sponsors:** Senators Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer and Ed Markey. - **directs:** the Federal Trade Commission (study and recommended framework) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (agency guidance). - **state_law_context:** California, Colorado, Connecticut and Montana neural-data amendments, developed in [[wiki/Continuity Governance|Continuity Governance]]. - **international_context:** [[wiki/UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology|UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology]] (194 states, November 2025) · [[wiki/Neurorights|Neurorights]]. - **concept_adjacency:** [[wiki/Mental Privacy|Mental Privacy]] · [[wiki/Neural Data Sovereignty|Neural Data Sovereignty]] · [[wiki/Neural Data Provenance|Neural Data Provenance]]. - **technology_in_scope:** [[wiki/Brain-Computer Interfaces|Brain-Computer Interfaces]] · [[wiki/Inner Speech Decoding|Inner Speech Decoding]] (the capability that makes the definition consequential). - **ecosystem:** [[wiki/Neurotechnology Ecosystem|Neurotechnology Ecosystem]] · [[collections/Neurotech|Neurotech]]. ## Sources - [MIND Act of 2025, S.2925 text — Congress.gov](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2925/text/is) - [Sens. Cantwell, Schumer, Markey introduce legislation to shield Americans' brain data — Senate Commerce Committee, September 2025](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/9/sens-cantwell-schumer-markey-introduce-legislation-to-shield-americans-brain-data-from-exploitation) - [The MIND Act: balancing innovation and privacy in neurotechnology — Cooley, 25 September 2025](https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2025/2025-09-25-the-mind-act-balancing-innovation-and-privacy-in-neurotechnology) - [U.S. senators propose "MIND Act" — Davis Wright Tremaine, October 2025](https://www.dwt.com/blogs/privacy--security-law-blog/2025/10/senate-mind-act-neural-data-ftc-regulation) - [State of mind: the new landscape of neural data privacy laws — Risk Management Magazine, 24 February 2026](https://www.rmmagazine.com/articles/article/2026/02/24/state-of-mind--the-new-landscape-of-neural-data-privacy-laws) As of 23 October 2026.