This market resolves to “YES” if any neurotechnology company is sued over unauthorized collection, use, or storage of brain-related data by December 31, 2025. The lawsuit must be officially filed in a court of law and reported by reputable sources (e.g., Bloomberg, Reuters, TechCrunch).

Definitions & Criteria:

• A neurotech company is defined as a business primarily focused on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), EEG-based systems, neural implants, neuromodulation, or cognitive state monitoring. Examples of neurotech companies include Neuralink, Kernel, Emotiv, Synchron, Blackrock Neurotech, CTRL-Labs (acquired by Meta), and Muse.

• “Brain data” includes EEG signals, neural activity, brainwave-based user inputs, or cognitive/emotional state data collected via neurotechnology.

• The lawsuit must allege that the company collected, stored, processed, or used brain data without proper consent or in violation of privacy laws.

• The lawsuit can be filed by individuals, advocacy groups, regulators, or governments, but must be related to consumer or research data, not internal employee disputes.

• The case must be formally filed in court — government investigations, regulatory warnings, or settlements without a lawsuit do not count.

Factors to consider:

• Neurotechnology companies are developing increasingly powerful devices that monitor and process brain activity.

• Growing adoption of consumer and medical neurotechnology increases the potential for privacy concerns.

• Legal frameworks for brain data are still emerging, but “neurorights” discussions are gaining traction.

• Past legal actions related to biometric data privacy (e.g., facial recognition, health data) could set precedents for neurodata lawsuits.

Will a neurotech company face legal action for unauthorized brain data collection by 2025, or will the industry avoid legal challenges?