Dental Protection has called on the UK Government to introduce legislation that would classify artificial intelligence systems as products, warning that the current legal framework leaves clinicians unfairly exposed to clinical negligence claims when defective AI tools cause patient harm. The professional body's new report, Closing the AI Liability Gap, argues that the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which predates modern AI, fails to define AI systems as products - shielding developers and manufacturers from the liability rules that normally apply to defective goods.
The AI liability gap
Under existing product liability law, if a physical device like a surgical tool malfunctions and injures a patient, the manufacturer can be held responsible. AI-driven diagnostic or treatment planning software often falls outside this framework because it is not clearly a "product" in the legal sense. Dental Protection warns that this gap pushes legal responsibility onto oral healthcare professionals who use the technology, even when the root cause of harm lies in the AI system itself.
"The Consumer Protection Act 1987 was never designed with AI in mind," said Dr George Wright, Dental Director at Dental Protection. "As a result, those who develop, manufacture and supply AI systems may end up being shielded from the liability rules that would ordinarily apply if a defective product causes harm. This makes it difficult for patients to bring product liability claims against these parties if harm occurs. The default could therefore be to pursue clinicians, as the end users of the AI, through a clinical negligence claim."
The report underscores that this imbalance could slow AI adoption in dentistry and the wider NHS. Clinicians who fear bearing sole legal risk may resist using tools that could otherwise improve diagnostics and personalised care plans. For government officials responsible for shaping AI regulations, courses like the AI Learning Path for Policy Makers offer guidance on the governance frameworks needed to address such challenges.
Call for legislative action
Dental Protection is urging the Government to introduce clear statutory language that defines AI systems as products. Such a change would distribute legal responsibility more fairly across developers, manufacturers, suppliers, and clinicians. It would also give patients a clearer route to seek compensation from the companies behind faulty AI, rather than solely from healthcare providers.
"If harm arises from a defective AI system, legal responsibility should be distributed fairly," Dr Wright said. "Clear, shared liability would not only better protect clinicians, but it would also build trust, encourage uptake of AI, and incentivise developers to prioritise safety from the outset. The Government must address this issue."
Why this matters for government
The liability question is not confined to dentistry. As the public sector increasingly deploys AI - from diagnostic support in NHS trusts to decision-assist tools in social care - the same legal ambiguity could affect a broad range of public service professionals. Without legislative clarity, public bodies may face higher indemnity costs and workforce resistance, slowing the safe deployment of AI across government services. The upcoming Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, or a subsequent AI-specific measure, will need to tackle this gap directly to protect both public sector workers and the patients who rely on them.
Your membership also unlocks:
