Is Medical Device Software a “Product”?
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.09.23
Many medical device companies are accustomed to defending product liability litigation, and the applicability of product liability law to traditional medical devices is not usually questioned. But as an increasing number of medical devices are themselves software or include some software-based function – from clinical decision support tools to robotic surgery machines – an important question becomes: is medical device software a “product” within the meaning of product liability law? This threshold issue has the potential to be claim or even case dispositive for defendants facing allegations of defective device software.
The FDA has been regulating software that meets the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act definition of a medical device for several years. FDA’s policies towards software regulation are “independent of the platform on which [the software] might run, are function-specific, and apply across platforms.”[1] In other words, software may meet the definition of a medical device for purposes of FDA regulation whether it is itself a medical device or is used in the function or control of hardware devices, mobile platforms, or other general-purpose computing platforms. For purposes of product liability litigation, on the other hand, it is possible software may be treated differently based on its platform, function, or other characteristics. But to our knowledge, the question of whether medical device software constitutes a “product” has not been addressed in a published decision.
Recent litigation in the social media context, however, illustrates a potential “non-product” argument. Last month, several leading technology companies filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint in In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction / Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3047), a multidistrict product liability litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which plaintiffs allege that defendants’ social media platforms caused addiction and mental health problems in adolescent users. Defendants argue that their social media platforms are not “products” subject to product liability law but rather are “services” and plaintiffs’ alleged injuries flow from intangible information and ideas expressed through those services. Defendants’ position in the Social Media Adolescent Addiction litigation is supported by recent precedent in which courts have uniformly held that social media platforms are not “products” for purposes of product liability law. Among other reasons, social media platforms function as communication tools, they are publishers of third-party content, and they are not tangible. While medical devices may or may not share all of these characteristics, it is an argument worth considering where a plaintiff brings product liability claims aimed at medical device software functions.
Whether a defendant should raise a “non-product” defense will depend on individualized facts, circumstances, and goals, but classification as a “product” or not could have important implications. Among other things, strict liability is available in most jurisdictions for claims against “products,” but is not available for claims related to services, ideas, or information. And “products” do not have the same First Amendment protections that ideas and information do. On the other hand, certain defenses such as potential preemption of tort liability under the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the component parts doctrine, and the learned intermediary doctrine, may be available in product liability actions, but likely do not apply to the extent software is treated as a service, idea, or information.
We will continue to follow the social media litigation to see how some of these threshold issues are resolved for purposes of the Social Media MDL and are available to advise clients regarding the developing case law in this space.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/digital-health-center-excellence/device-software-functions-including-mobile-medical-applications.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.15.25
On August 15, 2025, the Treasury Department and IRS released updated guidance concerning Beginning of Construction requirements to qualify for clean energy tax credits. This new guidance is critical for developers to consider as they rush to qualify for the tax credits before they expire entirely. The much-anticipated guidance followed the July 7, 2025 Executive Order 14315, Ending Market Distorting Subsidies for Unreliable, Foreign-Controlled Energy Sources (“July 7, 2025 Executive Order”), which signaled that the Trump Administration was planning to strictly enforce the termination of production and investment tax credits for solar and wind facilities that are set to expire under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act), covered in more detail here. The new guidance comes at a time when many in the industry are struggling to keep up with the myriad ways that the new administration is working to roll back wind and solar tax credits, leaving developers to piece through the recent guidance to determine how best to structure and invest in clean energy projects given the volatile position of the current administration vis-a-vis wind and solar energy.
Client Alert | 10 min read | 10.15.25
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.14.25
Client Alert | 35 min read | 10.13.25
Building Blocks of Design Law: CJEU rules on LEGO Group Modular Design Protection