header-logo header-logo

13 December 2024
Issue: 8098 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Consumer , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Neurotech & future risks in product liability

200991
Your mind is not a kettle. Product liability and neurotechnology is the subject of Crown Office Chambers barrister Harry Lambert’s fifth article in his astonishing series on neurotech law, in this week’s NLJ.

While the Consumer Protection Act offers robust protection against defective products, ‘the rapid advancement of neurotechnology presents unprecedented challenges to this framework’, writes Lambert, founder and head of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law. He explores three areas where the Act’s limitations become ‘starkly apparent’, for example, ‘the inherent plasticity of the brain and the consequently insidious, long-term risks of neurotechnology use, especially in children’.  

What is a ‘defect’? Due to incredible advances in neurotechnology, key legal definitions may need an update. Lambert explains the tech that exists or is on its way, and the gaps in the law arising as a result.

He writes: ‘The accumulation of micro-injuries from invasive neurostimulation may not present symptoms until significant damage occurs. The same is true of subtle neurotransmitter imbalances which may not present obvious symptoms initially, but can lead to mood disorders or cognitive dysfunction over time.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll