Vermont’s H.814, an Act Relating to Neurological Rights and the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Health and Human Services, passed the State Senate in concurrence with the House on 6 May 2026 and now sits with Governor Phil Scott. Rafael Yuste, the Columbia neuroscientist who has led global neurorights advocacy since the 2017 NeuroRights Initiative, framed the result as Vermont becoming “the 9th territory in the world” with neural data legislation. What passed is the 6-page House version that recognises a right to “mental and neural data privacy” but contains none of the enforcement mechanisms that were in the original 27-page draft.
What is in the enacted bill
A House committee cut H.814 from 27 pages to 6 pages in March 2026 (Privacy Daily, 19 March 2026). Removed in committee:
- The specific consent requirement that “no person shall collect or record” or “share with a third party an individual’s neural data” without “written informed consent”
- A private right of action for individuals
- Attorney General enforcement authority with civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation under Vermont’s Consumer Protection Act
- Mental health chatbot guardrails
- The neural data privacy standards section that had carried the operational definitions
The Senate passed the House version in concurrence on 6 May, which means the Senate accepted the House text unmodified. The 6-page version retains a statutory recognition of the right to mental and neural data privacy and a directive to study further regulation. The bill takes effect 1 July 2026 if signed.
The 9th territory claim
Yuste’s count, as posted on X on 6 May, lists Chile, Rio Grande do Sul, Colorado, California, Montana, Alabama, Connecticut, and Canada, with Vermont as the ninth.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 2021 constitutional amendment, 2023 Supreme Court ruling | In force |
| Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil | 2021 state constitutional amendment | In force |
| Colorado | SB 24-205 (amends CPA, neural data added to “sensitive data”) | In force August 2025 |
| California | 2024 amendment to the California Consumer Privacy Act | In force |
| Montana | 2025 statute | In force |
| Connecticut | SB 1295 (amends CTDPA) | Effective 1 July 2026 |
| Vermont | H.814 | Passed, awaiting Governor Scott |
Alabama’s HB263 died sine die in 2025. Canada’s Bill C-27 lapsed when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 (Dargentic Neurotechnology Report Spring 2026, Page 23). On a strict count, six jurisdictions currently have enacted neural data instruments. Vermont becomes the seventh if Governor Scott signs.
How Vermont compares to the four US states already in force
Colorado, California, Montana, and Connecticut treat neural data as “sensitive data” under their existing comprehensive privacy laws. Those four statutes import the consent, sale, processing, and data-subject-rights obligations of the underlying state privacy regime, with the state Attorney General (and in California, the California Privacy Protection Agency) able to bring enforcement actions and assess penalties.
Vermont’s H.814 as enacted contains neither category. Compliance overhead for a company processing the neural data of Vermont residents is materially unchanged by the statute. The statutory recognition of the right exists; the operational requirements and the state authority to enforce them do not.
The Dargentic Neurotechnology Report (Spring 2026) frames this dynamic on Page 21 as the US “fifth passage” patchwork: every state takes its own pathway, and the bills lose enforcement substance as they move through committee. Vermont follows the pattern.
What to watch
The bill now sits with Governor Scott. The base case is signature. A veto would be the minority outcome on a recognition-only bill that strips the regulatory weight committee members objected to.
Massachusetts, Minnesota (SF 1240 with companion HF 1728), and Illinois have neural data bills under consideration in their state legislatures, per the Dargentic Report Page 21 mapping (data cutoff 31 March 2026). The structural question for the US patchwork is whether those states pass enforcement-equipped versions, comparable to the Colorado, California, and Connecticut amendments, or recognition-only versions comparable to Vermont’s. The answer determines whether the patchwork creates operating risk for BCI and consumer-neurotech companies that serve users across state lines.
The European Union’s evolving treatment of neural data under the AI Act and GDPR, South Korea’s K-Moonshot regulatory work flagged in the Dargentic Report Page 22 case study, and the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office position are the next jurisdictions on the global watch list. None of these are statutory recognitions of neurorights as such; all are operational frameworks that will determine how neural data is processed in those jurisdictions.
Methodology
Bill status verified via Vermont Legislature H.814 status page and BillTrack50 (“Read 3rd time & passed in concurrence on 05/06/2026”). Content of the 6-page House-passed version sourced from Privacy Daily’s 19 March 2026 reporting on the committee cuts and the witness testimony filed with the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee on 9 April 2026. Comparative jurisdictional count and instrument mapping cross-checked against the Dargentic Neurotechnology Report (Spring 2026), Pages 21 and 23. Yuste public statement sourced from his 6 May 2026 X post (@yusterafa).