MEC Practice Academy 11.19
Commentary|Videos|October 23, 2025

Defining AI liability: Who should set the rules for AI in medicine?

Fact checked by: Keith A. Reynolds

David Simon, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D., contrasts the European Union’s proactive approach to AI oversight with the U.S. system’s reliance on courts and the FDA — and argues for a middle path balancing innovation and accountability.

David Simon, J.D., Ph.D., L.L.M., associate professor of law at Northeastern University, examines whether artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in health care should be shaped by policymakers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the courts.

Simon contrasts the European Union’s proactive approach — regulating AI heavily before it reaches the market — with the United States’ more reactive stance. He argues for a middle path: stronger premarket scrutiny for medical AI systems, coupled with legal accountability once they’re in widespread use.

“We just don’t know the safety risks of these products until they’ve been used by thousands of people,” Simon says. “So it’s critical to have both front-end regulation and back-end protection through liability.”


Related to this article

When the AI agent won't take no for an answer: ©Grandeduc - stock.adobe.com
News & Analysis
An OpenAI agent's unauthorized trip through an Australian Medicare data portal is a preview of the risks physicians take on as autonomous AI moves into prior authorization, billing and scheduling, and of what practices should demand from the vendors deploying it.