{"id":8832,"date":"2025-11-11T18:49:51","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T18:49:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/?page_id=8832"},"modified":"2025-11-13T15:39:04","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T15:39:04","slug":"musks-grok-ai-faces-risks-over-unlicensed-medical-and-legal-claims","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/research-insights\/insights\/musks-grok-ai-faces-risks-over-unlicensed-medical-and-legal-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Musk\u2019s Grok AI Faces Risks Over Unlicensed Medical and Legal Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a series of posts on Twitter, Elon Musk promoted the site\u2019s \u201cGrok\u201d AI chatbot as being capable of analyzing blood test results, X-rays, and other medical information, inviting the site\u2019s users to try the function. Musk also went on to state that, in the future, the bot will also be able to analyze legal documents. These claims may put Twitter at risk of violating laws against the unlicensed practice of medicine, as well as the unlicensed practice of law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bottom Line:<\/strong> Elon Musk\u2019s push to commercialize Twitter\u2019s \u201cGrok\u201d AI model and salvage the platform\u2019s profitability is taking him headlong into uncharted legal territory, with potentially serious consequences.\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Elon Musk Promotes \u201cGrok\u201d AI Model as Bein<\/b>g<\/b> Capable of Anal<\/b>y<\/b>zin<\/b>g<\/b> Medical Data<\/b>,<\/b> Le<\/b>g<\/b>al Documents<\/b><\/h2>\n

On October 29, Elon Musk <\/b>made a post on Twitter<\/b> <\/a>in which he advertised his company\u2019s AI chatbot \u201cGrok\u201d as being capable of reading PET, MRI, and x-ray scans, as well as other medical information:<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cTry submitting x-ray, PET, MRI or other medical images to Grok for analysis. This is still early stage <\/span>[sic], but it is already quite accurate and will become extremely good. Let us know where Grok gets it right or needs work.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When asked if the bot could also <\/span>anal<\/span>y<\/span>ze blood sample results<\/span><\/a>, Musk <\/span>stated that it could.<\/span><\/a> and also said that the ability to <\/span>read and anal<\/span>y<\/span>ze le<\/span>g<\/span>al documents<\/span> <\/a>was <\/span>forthcomin<\/span>g<\/span><\/a>. At the time of this writing, Musk\u2019s post has received at least 41 million views, and the replies seem to suggest that many users did, in fact, submit medical information to Grok for analysis, despite a lack of transparency on how this data might be used.<\/span><\/p>\n

Possible Unlicensed Practice of Medicine<\/b><\/h3>\n

At present, Twitter is in the process of relocating from its former San Francisco, CA headquarters to Austin, TX. <\/span>Under Texas law, it is likely that Grok is engaging in the provision of medical advice, and is thus unlawfully practicing medicine without a license.<\/b> The practice of medicine is defined by Texas law as: <\/span>\u201cthe dia<\/span>g<\/span>nosis<\/span>,<\/span> treatment<\/span>,<\/span> or offer to treat a mental or ph<\/span>y<\/span>sical disease or disorder or a ph<\/span>y<\/span>sical deformit<\/span>y<\/span> or in<\/span>j<\/span>ur<\/span>y<\/span> b<\/span>y<\/span> an<\/span>y<\/span> s<\/span>y<\/span>stem or method<\/span>,<\/span> or the attempt to effect cures of those conditions<\/span>,<\/span> b<\/span>y<\/span> a person who:<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. publicl<\/span>y<\/span> professes to be a ph<\/span>y<\/span>sician or sur<\/span>g<\/span>eon<\/span>;<\/span> or<\/span><\/a><\/li>\n
  2. directl<\/b>y<\/b> or indirectl<\/b>y<\/b> char<\/span>g<\/span>es mone<\/span>y<\/span> or other compensation for those services.\u201d<\/span> <\/a>(Tex. <\/span>Occ. Code \u00a7 151.002(13).)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Although Musk has held out Grok as being competent to interpret medical information, he has made no claims that Grok is a licensed doctor. <\/span>However<\/i>, <\/strong>access to Grok is a feature exclusive to paid Twitter users<\/b>, meaning that money is being (indirectly) charged for the provision of services. This makes Grok\u2019s services, by definition, paid.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Grok\u2019s actions also can be easily construed as the <\/b>corporate<\/i><\/b> practice of medicine.<\/b> In fact, it is quite difficult to construe them as anything else. Similar to the legal profession\u2019s ban on non-lawyers having ownership interests in law firms, Texas law <\/span>explicitl<\/span>y<\/span> prohibits the corporate practice of medicine<\/span><\/a>, on grounds that doing so would potentially influence the professional judgment of doctors. (Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 164.052(a)(17)) In <\/span>Gupta v. Eastern Idaho Tumor Institute<\/span><\/i>, the 14th District held that a joint venture between an oncologist and a corporation to operate a cancer treatment center was not in violation of state law because the arrangement posed no risk of affecting the doctor\u2019s professional judgment. (140 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App. Houston 14th 2004)) However, as an AI construct, Grok\u2019s fundamental \u201cjudgment\u201d (if such a characteristic can truly be ascribed to an AI) is <\/span>quite literally in the hands of Twitter<\/span><\/i>, a corporate entity not licensed to practice medicine. If we interpret Grok as \u201cpracticing medicine,\u201d this is facially illegal.<\/span><\/p>\n

    (It should be noted that while some have read Texas statute to permit the practice of medicine b<\/span>y<\/span> LLCs, <\/span><\/a>there are a number of instances of <\/span>LLCs bein<\/span>g<\/span> prosecuted for doin<\/span>g<\/span> precisel<\/span>y<\/span> this.<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

    Possible (Future) Unauthorized Practice of Law<\/b><\/h3>\n

    Advertising Grok as being capable of reading legal documents also carries significant risk of constituting the unauthorized practice of law.<\/b> Though it remains to be seen as to exactly how Musk plans to implement the \u201clegal analysis\u201d feature into the AI model, <\/span>if its actions rose to the level of constituting the practice of law, it would likely run afoul of Rule 5.4(d)(3) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct,<\/b> for the same reasons Grok\u2019s current actions potentially constitute the corporate practice of medicine. <\/span>5.4(d) (3<\/span>)<\/span> forbids le<\/span>g<\/span>al practice in an<\/span>y<\/span> form where a non-law<\/span>y<\/span>er has control over the professional <\/span>j<\/span>ud<\/span>g<\/span>ment of a law<\/span>y<\/span>er.<\/span> <\/a>Though Grok is obviously not a lawyer, such an arrangement would clearly go against the intent of the law.<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Matthew Sparks was a Justice Fellow at the Tech Institute 2023-2024.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In a series of posts on Twitter, Elon Musk promoted the site\u2019s \u201cGrok\u201d AI chatbot as being capable of analyzing blood test results, X-rays, and other medical information, inviting the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19629,"featured_media":0,"parent":7881,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-8832","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8832","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19629"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8832"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8832\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8868,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8832\/revisions\/8868"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/tech-institute\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

    Grok\u2019s interpretation of medical scans and results counts as the practice of medicine.<\/b> In <\/span>Lowry v. Texas Medical Board<\/span><\/i> (2021), the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals <\/span>found that a former ph<\/span>y<\/span>sician who was bein<\/span>g <\/span>consulted with b<\/span>y<\/span> a licensed ph<\/span>y<\/span>sician to \u201cinterpret\u201d patients\u2019 EEG results was<\/span>,<\/span> indeed, practicin<\/span>g<\/span> medicine within the meanin<\/span>g<\/span> of Texas state statute<\/span>,<\/span> even thou<\/span>g<\/span>h he had no direct contact with patients.<\/span> <\/a>(<\/span>Lowry v. <\/span><\/i>Texas Medical Board<\/span><\/i>, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 4656, at *13-14.)<\/span><\/p>\n