As neurotechnology advances, courts face a new legal frontier: can brain data be used as evidence? This article explores how neural evidence challenges the distinction between physical and testimonial evidence, examining its implications under the European Convention on Human Rights. It argues that while neurotechnology offers significant medical benefits, stronger legal safeguards are needed to protect mental privacy and the right against self-incrimination.

As AI transitions from text to brain data, Brain Foundation Models (BFMs) are rapidly emerging. Trained on massive neural datasets like EEGs and fMRIs, these powerful systems can decode human thoughts and predict health outcomes. However, our legal frameworks are not keeping pace. From compromised data consent and reidentification risks to massive gaps in HIPAA and FDA regulations, this article maps the urgent legal, privacy, and governance challenges reshaping the future of

Cybersecurity focuses on firewalls, yet the human mind remains the most vulnerable layer. At hour nineteen of an incident, cognitive degradation—impaired memory and reactive thinking—becomes a target for adversaries who time attacks to exploit exhaustion. While "neurorights" debates in Chile and the EU focus on data privacy, they ignore the brain as an operational asset. As neurotech like EEG "e-tattoos" enters the workplace, we must legally codify cognitive security.

The proposed Digital Omnibus Regulation could weaken protections for neurodata in the EU. By narrowing the GDPR definition of health data to information that “directly” reveals health status, many forms of brain-related data may fall outside enhanced safeguards. While global bodies like UNESCO call for stronger protections, the EU proposal risks creating regulatory gaps for consumer neurotechnologies and undermining Europe’s leadership in digital rights and privacy.