Current product liability framework is woefully ill-equipped to capture the unique challenges associated with neurotechnology: in Pt 5 of his series, Harry Lambert outlines the need for a more nuanced approach
- While the Consumer Protection Act 1987 effectively addresses physical injuries caused by defective products, it struggles with the more insidious impacts of neurotechnology upon our brains, particularly in children.
- Addressing the complex challenges posed by neurotechnology demands innovative solutions that extend beyond traditional paradigms.
- Any updated framework should include a more nuanced definition of what constitutes a ‘defect’, and eliminate the current ten-year limitation on liability.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) provides a robust framework for consumer protection against defective products causing readily identifiable harm. However, the rapid advancement of neurotechnology presents unprecedented challenges to this framework.
This article explores three key areas where CPA 1987’s limitations become starkly apparent in the context of neurotechnology: (1) the inherent plasticity of the brain and the consequently insidious, long-term risks of neurotechnology use, especially in children; (2) CPA 1987’s difficulties in addressing violations
