Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Devices can now log ‘P300’ attention spikes, creating auditable records showing whether users actually engaged with key terms. Prominence disputes, they suggest, may become ‘largely academic’.
But the same data can be weaponised. Neurotech can time prompts to moments of low resistance, raising red flags for undue influence and unconscionable conduct. Existing law can respond, but enforcement is hard where harm is subtle and dispersed.
The authors warn regulators and developers alike: without guardrails, manipulative design may become normalised. Consent may soon be measurable—but also more easily engineered.
RELATED ARTICLES
