Mining of minds?

California companies now face a roadblock to selling information gleaned by analyzing ­people’s brains, thanks to a new law passed Sept. 28.

Modern wearable devices bring neurotechnology to the average consumer: BrainBit headbands, for example, scan the user’s brain and can “broadcast” his mood to social media. A company called Emotiv offers a range of products, including Bluetooth earbuds, that electronically analyze the wearer’s attention level and cognitive performance.

But few rules limit what companies can do with such information that they gather, according to Columbia University’s NeuroRights Foundation, a nonprofit that promoted California’s law. In an April report, NeuroRights found that, out of 30 companies with products available to consumers, half of them said they might share information with third parties.

California already had a Consumer Privacy Act on the books, but lawmakers amended it to add protections for “neural data” under the umbrella of “personal sensitive information,” a category that includes fingerprints and Social Security numbers. Consumers may opt out of brain data collection and can correct or delete information.

With the help of NeuroRights, Colorado became the first state to pass a brain data privacy law in April.

Sausage, pepperoni, and arbitration

Because their daughter once ordered a pizza through Uber Eats, a New Jersey couple can’t sue over the injuries they sustained in an Uber accident, a state appeals court ruled in September.

Georgia and John McGinty sued Uber a year after a March 2022 car accident in which their Uber driver T-boned another car. Georgia McGinty suffered several injuries including lumbar spine and rib fractures. Her husband fractured his sternum and left arm. Yet Uber’s lawyers argued that the couple’s daughter—just 12 years old at the time—clicked away her family’s rights for a trial by jury when ordering a pizza in early 2022. The app’s terms of service had contained an agreement to send disputes to arbitration.

A lower court originally sided with the McGintys, ruling that the company had concealed its arbitration clause. But the appeals court reversed the ruling, deciding that the terms were “valid and enforceable” and directing the case to arbitrators. —B.M.

Associated Press/Photo by Mark Bugnaski

Minor crimes decision

The European Court of Justice ruled Oct. 4 that police may unlock a phone without permission even while investigating minor offenses. The ruling came after Austrian police arrested a man in possession of 85 grams of marijuana and confiscated his phone. The defendant sued, learning in court that authorities had tried to search his phone without his consent. While the Court of Justice reasoned an investigation shouldn’t supersede fundamental rights, it said searching a phone only in the event of a serious offense would “unduly limit” investigative powers. —B.M.