header-logo header-logo

Neurotechnology & the law: product liability

200991
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,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll