The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025 amends the Public Health Service Act to create a uniform federal baseline of civil immunity for people who use automated external defibrillators (AEDs), for premises where AEDs are stored or taken from, and for owners or acquirers of AEDs. The immunity is broad: it covers harm from use or attempted use of an AED unless an enumerated exception applies.
The bill matters to organizations that install, manage, or might be expected to provide AEDs—multi-state employers, building owners, schools, and municipalities—because it removes much of the uncertainty created by varying state Good Samaritan regimes and includes a federal preemption clause that displaces state laws to the extent they would allow liability where this statute provides immunity.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill provides federal immunity from civil liability for (1) bystanders who use or attempt to use an AED, (2) owners, occupiers, or managers of premises where an AED is used or removed from, and (3) owners or other acquirers of AEDs, subject to limited exceptions. It sets maintenance as the principal condition for owner-acquirer liability.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include bystander rescuers (non–owner-acquirers), property owners/managers, employers and multi-state operators that deploy AEDs, AED owners/acquirers, hospitals and licensed health professionals (who are treated differently under the bill), and insurers that underwrite related risk.
Why It Matters
By establishing a federal baseline and preempting contrary state laws, the bill aims to reduce deployment hesitation and create a predictable compliance landscape for entities operating across state lines. At the same time, it adjusts existing accountability rules—most notably by tying owner-acquirer liability to maintenance standards and exempting certain health-care actors from immunity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute rewrites the federal treatment of AED-related liability by creating three immunity categories. First, routine Good Samaritan protections cover any person who uses or tries to use an AED on someone the user reasonably believes is experiencing a life‑threatening cardiac or cardiopulmonary condition—so long as that person is not the owner-acquirer of the device.
Second, occupants, lessees, managers, or owners of premises where an AED is used or taken from receive immunity for harm resulting from such use or attempted use, again unless they are the device’s owner-acquirer. Third, the statute shields owner-acquirers from liability except where the owner-acquirer’s failure to maintain the AED according to the manufacturer’s guidelines proximately caused the harm.
The bill draws a clear line on evidentiary and procedural matters: immunity applies regardless of whether the AED carried cautionary signage, was registered with a government, whether the rescuer had training, or whether the rescuer was assisted by others (including licensed clinicians). That combination is designed to lower legal risk for spontaneous bystander intervention and for locations that house AEDs.But immunity is not unconditional.
The statute removes protection in instances of willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or conscious, flagrant indifference to the victim’s rights—legal formulations that preserve civil recourse for egregious behavior. It also carves out licensed or certified health professionals acting within the scope of their license, and health-care entities (hospitals, clinics) whose employees use AEDs in the course of employment; similarly, owner-acquirers who lease AEDs to health-care entities for compensation can face liability for employee use.The law also contains explicit federal rules of construction: it does not require anyone to place an AED, it preempts State laws to the extent those laws would permit liability where the federal immunity applies, and it clarifies that the statute’s immunity applies to civil actions arising under federal or, in some federal areas, state law.
The bill defines key terms—most importantly an owner-acquirer and a ‘perceived medical emergency’—and makes clear that the covered category of harm includes physical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute creates three immunity buckets: bystander users (non–owner-acquirers), premises owners/occupiers/managers, and owner-acquirers of AEDs, each immune from civil liability for harm from AED use or attempted use, subject to exceptions.
An owner-acquirer loses immunity only if the owner-acquirer’s failure to properly maintain the AED according to the device manufacturer’s guidelines proximately caused the harm—linking legal exposure to a maintenance standard rather than to usage errors by rescuers.
Immunity applies regardless of signage, registration, or whether the rescuer had training or was supervised, meaning documentation or lack of training is not, by itself, a basis to pierce the shield.
The bill explicitly excludes immunity for willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or conscious flagrant indifference; it also excludes licensed/certified health professionals acting within their scope and hospitals or clinics when harm is caused by employees acting within employment.
The statute contains a federal preemption clause that displaces State law to the extent a State would allow civil liability in circumstances where federal law grants immunity, but it also says the statute does not create federal-question jurisdiction for courts under 28 U.S.C. §1331.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional rationale for a federal baseline
The Findings enumerate why Congress believes a uniform federal standard will increase AED deployment—emphasizing multi‑state operators and the perceived patchwork of state Good Samaritan laws. Practically, this signals that the statute’s purpose is to reduce legal uncertainty for entities considering broad AED placement, and to justify preemption in the operative text that follows.
Immunity for bystander users who are not device owner-acquirers
This subsection immunizes persons who use or attempt to use an AED on a victim of a ‘perceived medical emergency’ provided they are not the owner-acquirer. For compliance teams, the critical operational effect is that volunteer responders and passersby are insulated from ordinary negligence claims—subject to the exceptions listed in subsection (e). Because the immunity excludes owner-acquirers, entities that both own the AED and act as the rescuer get different treatment.
Immunity for premises owners, lessees, and managers
The statute shields those who own, lease, occupy, or manage a location where an AED is used or from which an AED is taken—unless they are the owner-acquirer. That protects building managers, event venues, and landlords who make AEDs available (but do not own them) from ordinary civil suits tied to AED use. Organizations that both manage a site and own the AED should note the distinction: immunity attaches to the premises relationship, not to ownership interests in the device.
Conditional immunity for AED owners tied to maintenance
Owner-acquirers enjoy immunity except when harm is proximately caused by their failure to maintain the AED according to manufacturer guidelines. This makes ongoing maintenance programs, recordkeeping of inspections, battery and pad replacements, and adherence to manufacturer alerts the primary risk-control measures for owners—compliance policies should track manufacturer directions closely to preserve immunity.
Immunity applies despite lack of training or signage; exceptions for egregious conduct and healthcare settings
Subsection (d) removes common-form bases for liability challenges—training, signage, or registration status will not defeat immunity—while subsection (e) preserves avenues for liability in cases of willful/criminal conduct, gross negligence, or for certain healthcare actors and employer-driven uses. That creates a wide protective band for public intervention, with narrower bands of accountability where conduct is egregious or occurs inside formal healthcare employment relationships.
Preemption mechanics, federal-state interplay, and key definitions
The rules of construction preempt State laws to the extent they would allow liability where federal immunity applies, but the bill disclaims creation of federal‑question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. It also defines ‘perceived medical emergency,’ ‘AED,’ ‘owner-acquirer,’ and the scope of recoverable ‘harm,’ which will govern how courts interpret proximate causation and which actors the statute covers. Practitioners should expect litigation over those operative definitions during early cases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Bystander rescuers and lay responders—They receive broad protection from civil suits for attempting AED use (so long as they are not the owner-acquirer), reducing the legal deterrent to intervening in emergencies.
- Multi-state employers, property managers, and venue operators who are not AED owner-acquirers—The federal baseline reduces the risk calculus of placing AEDs on many sites and simplifies cross-state deployment decisions.
- AED owners who maintain devices—Owners who implement documented maintenance programs per manufacturer guidance gain clear legal protection, converting operational diligence into legal insulation.
- Schools and nonprofit organizations that make AEDs available—Lower liability exposure may reduce insurance and procurement friction, encouraging wider deployment in community settings.
- Manufacturers and distributors of AEDs—A maintenance-based liability rule narrows post‑sale defect or misuse claims against owners, while preserving a market incentive to provide clear maintenance guidance and support.
Who Bears the Cost
- Hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare entities—The statute excludes these entities and their employees from immunity when AEDs are used in the course of employment, potentially increasing their exposure compared with non-healthcare premises.
- Licensed or certified health professionals acting within their scope—These professionals lose the federal Good Samaritan shield under the bill and thus may face more civil exposure for AED use in professional contexts.
- Owner-acquirers who fail to maintain devices—Those that do not follow manufacturer maintenance guidance risk losing immunity and facing proximate-cause-based liability; compliance and maintenance costs will be an ongoing burden.
- Insurers—Liability carriers for healthcare entities and some commercial property owners may face higher claims or tightened underwriting where the statute’s exceptions leave coverage gaps, driving premium adjustments or policy exclusions.
- State attorneys general and state legislatures—Preemption reduces state-level control over AED liability frameworks, shifting enforcement and policy levers to the federal standard and forcing states to revise related statutes or regulatory expectations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between maximizing AED deployment by insulating bystanders and premises from routine lawsuits, versus preserving accountability and clinical quality: the bill’s broad immunity lowers legal barriers to saving lives but shifts the onus onto maintenance standards and carve-outs (healthcare employers, licensed professionals) where liability still attaches—forcing a trade‑off between encouraging public access and ensuring professional and maintenance accountability.
The bill trades a broad, bright‑line immunity for potential ambiguity in two places. First, the owner‑acquirer maintenance standard—‘properly maintain the AED according to the guidelines of the manufacturer’—is operational but not self‑defining.
Manufacturers publish variable guidance; courts will need to decide whether documented schedules, reasonable industry practice, or exact adherence to every manufacturer bulletin determine proximate causation. That uncertainty could produce early litigation focused less on the rescue itself and more on records and maintenance minutiae.
Second, the statute’s carve‑outs create wrinkles in real‑world settings. Excluding licensed health professionals and hospitals from immunity while broadly protecting lay rescuers may produce perverse incentives at the margins: professional responders operating in mixed settings (e.g., a physician in an office building) may face different exposure than an untrained bystander down the hall.
Likewise, the lease‑for‑compensation exclusion creates a specific trap for owners who supply devices to health entities without transferring title. Finally, although the statute preempts state laws that would allow liability where federal immunity applies, it does not create federal-question jurisdiction—so forum choice and state procedural rules will still matter in many cases, potentially encouraging strategic pleading and venue disputes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.