Harry Lambert & Dr Michelle Sharpe set out how neurotech presents new ways to evidence contractual consent, & new ways to erode it
- Neurotech can both strengthen and undermine contractual consent. P300 attention signals may create auditable records showing which disclosures a user actually engaged with, but the same data can be used to manipulate consumers.
- Undue influence and unconscionable conduct can capture neurotech-enabled exploitation, while statutory consumer protection regimes focus on trader behaviour, including manipulative design or inadequate oversight.
- Current laws are often hard to enforce where harms are small and opaque, prompting calls for specialist regulators, guardrails, and auditable oversight in neurotech development.
Consumer neurotech devices that read and respond to brain and nerve activity are commercially available. A brain–computer interface (BCI) can be used to make purchases, confirm in-app transactions, and interact with online marketplaces. This has the potential to radically reshape how contracts are formed and enforced in the digital marketplace.
This article explores how neurotech can both inform contractual consent—by producing auditable attention records that evidence
