Federal law shields AED owners from liability—even for poor maintenance.

What it does

This bill creates a federal liability shield for people and organizations that use, own, or manage automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in cardiac emergencies. It protects bystanders, property owners, and AED owners from civil lawsuits if someone is harmed during AED use—except in cases of gross negligence, criminal conduct, or when licensed health professionals or hospitals are involved. The stated goal is to encourage wider AED deployment by removing fear of litigation.

Why we flagged it

The bill's operative mechanism is a broad immunity grant for AED users, owners, and premises managers. While framed as a public-health measure to encourage deployment, the core function is to restrict civil liability—a private-interest protection mechanism.

What the text implies

• The 'gross negligence' standard is significantly higher than ordinary negligence, meaning AED owners who fail to maintain devices, provide no training, or post no warnings may escape liability even when ordinary care would have prevented harm.
• The immunity applies 'regardless of whether the AED is marked with cautionary signage' or 'the person had received training'—this explicitly shields owners from liability for failing to warn or educate, shifting risk entirely to users.
• Premises managers gain immunity even if they know an AED is broken or missing, as long as they did not 'proximately cause' harm through gross negligence—a high bar that may protect negligent facility operators.
• The preemption clause overrides state law entirely, eliminating any state-level protections or remedies citizens might otherwise have, even in states with stronger consumer-protection standards.
• AED manufacturers are not named as beneficiaries but stand to gain from increased deployment without corresponding liability exposure, as liability is shifted to owners and users rather than device makers.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill removes a real barrier to AED availability in public spaces, which can save lives in cardiac emergencies. However, it also shields AED owners and premises managers from liability even when they fail to maintain devices properly or provide basic safety information, potentially leaving injured patients without legal recourse when harm results from negligence short of 'gross negligence.'

Who stands to gain

• AED manufacturers and distributors
• Premises owners and facility managers
• Organizations deploying AEDs in multi-state operations

Named in the bill

Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), Public Health Service Act, State Good Samaritan laws, FDA (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), Health care entities, Licensed health professionals, Premises owners and managers

Where it stands

9 cosponsors: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats.

• Feb 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,650,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 52 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

C. Franklin, the sponsor, reported $400,086 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association for Justice — $3,610,000 on 2 filings
• Defibtech LLC — $40,000 on 2 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.