Vermont lawmaker introduces H.866 to establish 'neurological rights' for neurotechnology

Representative Gina introduced H.866, ‘‘an act relating to neurological rights,’’ to the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. The bill, as she read its purpose to the committee, would recognize an individual’s right to mental and neural data privacy, freedom of thought and cognitive liberty, a right to change decisions regarding neurotechnology, and protection from unauthorized access, manipulation or alteration of brain activity.

The bill summary read to the committee says in part that individuals ‘‘have the right to mental and neural data privacy, the freedom of thought, cognitive liberty…to be afforded protection from neurotechnological interventions of the mind and from unauthorized access to or manipulation of their brain activity’’ and to ‘‘unauthorized neurotechnological alterations in their mental functionings critical to their personality.’’ Representative Gina asked the committee to consider expert testimony and said she believed the technologies at issue could become widely relevant within a few years.

Why it matters: Gina framed the bill as preemptive statutory protection tied to rapidly developing brain-computer interface technologies. She cited Neuralink as an example of an emerging commercial product that could be used for medical rehabilitation but also, in her view, raise privacy and autonomy risks if companies could collect or monetize brain data. Gina said Vermont has previously addressed related technology governance — she recounted service on and outcomes from an AI task force and state AI legislation — and urged the committee to examine neurological data protections alongside broader data-privacy work.

Committee reaction and context: Committee members responded briefly during the presentation; one member called the subject ‘‘the stuff of science fiction’’ while others noted parallels to consumer genetic or data-privacy debates. Gina pointed to the state’s earlier AI work and national developments (she referenced a federal executive order) to argue there is both policy precedent and urgency.

Next steps and formal action: The transcript records the bill introduction and Representative Gina’s request for witnesses and further study but contains no motion or formal committee vote. No referral, hearing schedule or recommended amendment is recorded in the meeting record provided.

Details from the presentation: Representative Gina outlined several specific protections the bill would declare as rights: the ability to control whether neurotechnology is used on an individual, protection against unauthorized access to neural data, and safeguards against changes to mental functions central to personality. She urged the committee to solicit technical and industry testimony and to consider folding some items into incoming data-privacy legislation the Senate was developing.

Ending: The committee did not take a formal vote during the session. Representative Gina concluded her remarks by inviting questions and suggesting the panel compile a list of witnesses and experts to bring to future hearings so the committee could examine technical and ethical issues in more depth.