New Tools Don't Always Need New Rules

Every unnecessary regulation adds friction to innovation

Every time a new technology or other product causes a panic among voters, lawmakers rush to write new rules. With the 2026 midterm elections nearing, senators and representatives want to look like they are taking action on the issues that matter most.

Take, for example, how emerging technology is reshaping the healthcare landscape. As consumers start to use AI chatbots to address personal health needs, legislators assume there surely are no laws on the books to ensure American patients are being diagnosed and treated safely and rush to regulate this tech’s development.

They lean into a narrative that all new products — from artificial intelligence and prediction markets to naturopathic medicine and self-driving cars — are somehow “unregulated” and often speak about them as if we live in something close to anarchy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The U.S. regulatory code now runs roughly 104.6 million words long — so long it would take years to read, if you were inclined to try. It governs everything from hair braiding to fishing. From consumer protections to liability law, America has an extensive legal system to maintain both order and liberty simultaneously.

But lawmakers don’t always see it that way. Rather than recognizing the application of numerous existing laws to AI — as many Democratic state attorneys general and even former FTC Chair Lina Khan have acknowledged — some policymakers insist that artificial intelligence represents a fundamentally “unregulated” space requiring an entirely new set of rules.

In comes a state legislator to save the day.

A New York state senator recently proposed legislation that would restrict AI tools from providing information that would otherwise come from a “licensed professional,” such as a doctor. The intention may sound reasonable at first glance. Nobody wants patients at risk of misdiagnosis or wrongful prescription. But under existing legislation that’s more likely to happen at the hands of an actual doctor than ChatGPT.

Healthcare is one of the greatest economic pain points for households today. Insurance premiums continue to climb, and treatment for serious diseases like cancer can bankrupt a family. Even routine care often comes with steep out-of-pocket costs. A single visit to a specialist can mean hundreds of dollars in co-pays, testing fees, and follow-up appointments.

Faced with these realities, people are looking for virtually any way to more affordably address their health concerns. Telemedicine prescription services have grown rapidly, and direct-to-consumer pharmacy options are expanding. At the same time, digital tools have made it easier than ever for patients to research symptoms and treatment options on their own.

As ChatGPT has become nearly as ubiquitous as Google, patients across the country are leveraging its research capabilities to better understand their symptoms, explore potential diagnoses, and learn about over-the-counter treatment options before deciding whether to seek further care.

It’s common sense. People have been using the internet to research their health for decades. Anyone who has ever looked up symptoms on WebMD knows this behavior isn’t new, even as we’ve become more critical of information sourced online. The technology may be more sophisticated today, but the underlying instinct — to gather information before making decisions about your health — remains the same.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot prescribe medication. That authority remains tightly controlled under existing law. The Food and Drug Administration already maintains strict rules governing pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Autonomous machines are not approved to perform surgery or other medical procedures. Licensed physicians remain firmly at the center of physical clinical care.

Nothing about these tools threatens the legal framework governing what doctors actually do.

The real issue isn’t medical treatment — it’s information.

AI systems can analyze publicly available medical research, summarize clinical guidelines, and help people better understand their symptoms. In other words, they do something quite similar to what search engines have enabled for years, only faster and more conversationally.

But instead of letting patients use this emerging technology to analyze health data — as we’ve done with Google and WebMD for years — the trigger-happy reflex to regulate kicks in. With it comes yet another law that could potentially gate-keep life-saving information because you “have to see a doctor.” In practical terms, that often means paying a co-pay and scheduling an appointment weeks in advance.

For many Americans, those costs are not trivial. They’re the reason people search for answers online in the first place. The irony is that existing laws already address the core concerns lawmakers claim to be solving. Consumer protection statutes prohibit deceptive practices. Medical licensing laws prevent unqualified individuals from practicing medicine. Scope of practice laws control prescription authority.

The framework is already there. Yet politics rewards lawmakers for writing new laws, not for acknowledging that current ones might already suffice. It doesn’t have to be this way. Before lawmakers rush to regulate the next technological breakthrough, they should start with a simple question: Are the laws we already have sufficient? In many cases, the answer is yes.

Every unnecessary regulation adds friction to innovation. Entrepreneurs must spend more time navigating legal uncertainty. Investors become more cautious about funding new technologies. Consumers ultimately pay the price through higher costs and fewer options.

Meanwhile, the regulatory code grows longer and more complex — a sprawling legal maze that becomes harder for anyone, including regulators themselves, to fully understand. If the government turned towards doing its current job, rather than growing, we’d all be better off. Entrepreneurial endeavors wouldn’t be saddled with unnecessary legal fees. Consumers would have greater access to innovative tools. And the law books, for once, might stop growing quite so thick.

Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.