If AI Chatbots Dish Out Misleading Health and Medical Guidance, Who Pays the Malpractice Bill?
Nikhil Prasad Fact checked by:Thailand Medical News Team Dec 15, 2025 7 hours, 30 minutes ago
Medical News: AI Health Chatbots Could Trigger a Medical Liability Crisis
The relationship between patients and medical professionals has always relied on trust built on accountability training and human judgment. Patients assume that advice given in a medical context comes from someone who is licensed regulated and legally responsible for the outcome. That assumption is now being quietly undermined by the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence platforms that present themselves as helpful guides for health, mental wellness and emotional support while increasingly crossing into territory that resembles real medical practice. As these tools become more sophisticated the risk to vulnerable users grows and so does the question of who is ultimately responsible when something goes wrong.
A deep dive into how AI health chatbots are blurring medical boundaries and raising urgent questions about accountability
and patient safety
California Draws a Legal Line in the Sand
Concern over this erosion of trust recently pushed California, the heart of global technology innovation to take decisive action. Assembly Bill 489 signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13 makes it illegal for AI chatbots or their developers to imply that they are licensed medical providers such as doctors, psychiatrists or psychotherapists. The law explicitly bans the use of titles, credentials or language that could mislead users into believing they are receiving advice from a qualified human healthcare professional. Lawmakers argue that this step was necessary because the pace of AI deployment has far outstripped ethical safeguards.
Why Lawmakers Felt Forced to Act
The legislation did not emerge in isolation. Earlier this year California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a strong advisory warning that only human physicians and licensed professionals are legally allowed to practice medicine in the state. He made it clear that medical decision making cannot be delegated to AI systems. Bonta emphasized that allowing AI tools to analyze patient data and offer guidance that overrides or substitutes for licensed medical judgment is not only unsafe but also violates fair business practices. Regulators fear that consumers are being misled into believing they are receiving legitimate care when they are not.
Mental Health Becomes the Highest Risk Zone
While AI tools are now appearing across many areas of healthcare, mental health has emerged as the most dangerous testing ground. Psychiatric support depends heavily on nuance empathy and the ability to respond appropriately to crisis situations. Dr John Torous director of the Digital Psychiatry Division at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has repeatedly warned that the current environment is a regulatory vacuum. He has highlighted cases where chatbots marketed to vulnerable users including minors have claimed to be licensed therapists or displayed fake medical license numbers. These are not hypothetical risks but documented incidents.
When Disclaimers Collide with Reality
Many AI health platforms attempt to shield themselves by claiming they are only wellness coaches or emot
ional support tools. However, investigations have shown that some of these systems analyze medical records, diagnostic reports and symptom histories before offering advice that closely resembles clinical recommendations. Legal experts note that disclaimers buried in terms of service do not necessarily protect companies from liability if their products function like medical providers. Courts have historically looked at what a service actually does rather than how it is labeled. This gap between branding and behavior is becoming one of the most dangerous fault lines in digital healthcare.
Evidence of Misleading Behavior Is Mounting
A report by the San Francisco Standard revealed that a chatbot on Character ai claimed to be a licensed therapist and even provided a real license number belonging to an actual mental health professional. Other role play bots openly used titles such as doctor or therapist while offering guidance on anxiety, depression and trauma. Dr Torous described the situation bluntly noting that chatbots often say they are not providing medical advice and then proceed to do exactly that. The blurred boundaries make it nearly impossible for users to distinguish between general information and clinical guidance.
AI Errors Are Not Just Technical Glitches
Beyond impersonation concerns, AI systems are also prone to hallucinations which are confident sounding but false outputs. OpenAI itself has acknowledged this issue in tools such as Whisper its speech recognition system that has been used in some healthcare settings. Separate safety testing found that large AI models including ChatGPT and Google Gemini were misled by poems and fictional content in more than half of controlled safety evaluations. In a medical context these errors are not harmless quirks. Incorrect advice about medication symptoms or self-harm can have life altering consequences.
Federal Oversight Remains Fragmented
At the national level, regulation has struggled to keep up. The Federal Trade Commission recently opened an inquiry into the safety practices of several companion chatbot companies including Character ai and OpenAI. FTC officials are examining whether consumers are being deceived about the nature of these services and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent harm. OpenAI responded by outlining its policies stating that models should not provide instructions for self-harm while still allowing fictional or contextual discussions. Critics argue that such distinctions are difficult for both machines and vulnerable users to navigate.
A Growing Patchwork of State Laws
California is not alone in acting but the lack of a unified federal framework has created a patchwork of rules. New Jersey has proposed similar bans on AI impersonation of healthcare professionals. Utah and Nevada have already passed related measures this year. Illinois has gone further by banning autonomous AI from providing therapy or treatment decisions without direct involvement from a licensed clinician. Jennifer Goldsack CEO of the Digital Medicine Society has warned that this fragmented approach creates confusion for providers developers and patients alike while slowing responsible innovation.
The Accountability Question No One Can Answer
At the heart of the debate lies a single unresolved issue accountability. Justin Starren director of biomedical informatics at the University of Arizona has framed it in stark terms. If a service claims to be delivered by a human but is actually delivered by a machine that already resembles consumer fraud. More troubling is the question of liability. Human clinicians must prove their competence carry malpractice insurance and face professional consequences for negligence. When an AI gives harmful advice there is no clear equivalent system of responsibility. The question of who pays the malpractice bill remains unanswered.
Vulnerable Users Face the Greatest Harm
Children adolescents and individuals with mental health conditions are particularly at risk. These users may be more likely to trust conversational AI that appears empathetic and authoritative. Without clear boundaries and enforcement the temptation for companies to market cheap scalable alternatives to real therapy will continue. Critics argue that the faster better stronger mindset driving AI development is incompatible with the slow careful and human centered nature of medical care. Nowhere is this mismatch more dangerous than in psychiatry.
Asia’s Unregulated AI Health Chatbot Boom Raises Alarming Ethical and Legal Risks
Across Asia a rapid and largely unchecked surge of AI health and medical chatbots is now unfolding raising concerns that may ultimately eclipse those seen in the United States. In countries such as China, India, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, hundreds of AI driven health chatbots are debuting across messaging platforms, hospital websites and standalone mobile apps, with little to no meaningful oversight from health regulators. While many are marketed as wellness-assistants, health coaches or gurus, symptom checkers or lifestyle advisors, investigations and expert reviews show that a significant number are actively dispensing medical and mental health advice, interpreting diagnostic data and even offering treatment recommendations. Particularly troubling is the fact that in several cases, licensed medical doctors, hospital groups and even former health officials are quietly backing these platforms or allowing their names institutions or credentials to be used to lend credibility without being the individuals actually delivering the advice. This creates a dangerous accountability vacuum where patients believe they are receiving guidance from trusted medical authorities when in reality decisions are being generated by opaque algorithms.
Public health experts argue that ministries of health across Asia must move beyond passive warnings and take decisive action including banning such applications and prosecuting doctors, clinics and hospitals that knowingly lend their names or reputations to AI systems that operate outside regulated medical practice. Without enforcement against human enablers not just software developers, these countries risk normalizing unlicensed machine-driven medicine at massive scale with potentially devastating consequences for patient safety and public trust.
What This Means for the Future of Healthcare
Supporters of AI in medicine argue that these tools can expand access reduce costs and assist clinicians when used responsibly. Many experts agree that AI has a role as a supplement not a substitute. However, the current landscape shows that commercial incentives often push platforms beyond safe limits. California’s law represents a significant attempt to restore clarity by reaffirming that medicine is a human responsibility. Whether this approach spreads nationally or is undermined by loopholes will shape the future of digital health.
Why This Debate Is Only Beginning
As AI platforms continue to evolve, regulators, doctors and patients are entering uncharted territory. Enforcement will be the true test of these new laws since companies can easily rebrand services as wellness or emotional support while maintaining clinical like functions. Without strong oversight the burden of risk will continue to fall on users least equipped to evaluate it. The stakes are no longer theoretical but deeply personal affecting real lives real families and real outcomes as highlighted in this
Medical News report.
The Unavoidable Reckoning Ahead
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into health and mental wellness has created a dangerous gray zone where responsibility is diluted and trust is exploited. Laws like California’s are an important first step but they do not yet resolve the deeper ethical and legal dilemmas. Until clear accountability frameworks exist and enforcement becomes consistent the question of liability will continue to haunt this sector. If machines are allowed to act like doctors without being treated like doctors under the law, patients will remain exposed to unacceptable risks and society will be forced to confront who ultimately bears the cost when harm occurs.
For the latest on AI Chatbots dispensing heath and medica guidance, keep on logging to Thailand
Medical News.
Read Also:
https://www.thailandmedical.news/articles/ai-in-medicine
Share
Tweet
Share
