Federal law shields AED owners from liability—even for poor maintenance.
H.R. 1466 — Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025 · Filed by C. Franklin (R-FL) · 9 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 21, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
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.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
AED manufacturers and distributors; Premises owners and facility managers; Organizations deploying AEDs in multi-state operations