Healthcare institutions must navigate a complex landscape of regulatory require­ments related to data privacy, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, and other national and international regulations. Compliance with these regulations requires continuous monitoring and adaptation of data protection practices to meet evolving legal standards [25]. In the United States, AI models used in ART workflow may require model-specific approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While it is the vendor’s responsi­bility to obtain initial 510(k) clearance and maintain continuing compliance, it is the medical physicist’s responsibility to verify the approval and compliance, particularly when preparing for initial commissioning and major model or software upgrades. Moreover, the medical physicists need to establish a quality management program to ensure that the local use of the AI models follows the regulatory approval and vendor recommendation. Any customized use of the integrated AI tools should undergo through evaluation in consultation with the vendor. The use of third-party or research AI tools without approval from the primary vendor may not only pose significant clinical risks, but also jeopardize regulatory compliance. Similarly, research that seeks to alter the standard workflow of the AI solutions also needs to be designed and applied with great caution.