header-logo header-logo

14 February 2025
Issue: 8104 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Human rights , Health
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Neuro-marketing & neuro-politics: are our thoughts our own?

208049
Welcome to the brave new world of neuropolitics! In this week’s NLJ, Harry Lambert, Outer Temple Chambers, continues his fascinating series on the fast-emerging area of neurorights with a look at free will, our sense of self, individual agency and freedom of thought.

Neuro-marketing and neuro-politics use strategies that sway us subconsciously without overt awareness. How do we regulate to protect the individual and wider society? The ‘capacity to manipulate consumer behaviour by exploiting subconscious responses’ threatens the ability to make informed choices.

Lambert, founder and head of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, writes: ‘Every interaction we have with the world is via the medium of the electrical impulses we refer to as “thought”. For that reason, we need to tread very carefully before we add a silicone intermediary in that process—one that has worked pretty well for hydrocarbon-based life for a few million years.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll