False positives will always cause undue distress, and that's a factor worth considering, but the consequences of a false positive from a mammogram or PSA test could be an invasive biopsy, as you point out, or even unnecessary treatment. Wouldn't the consequences of a false positive AF detection typically be much less serious though, such as some additional non-invasive tests? There's a financial and psychological cost to that, but is it really comparable to a false positive indication for cancer, which would be much more difficult to follow up, especially weighed against the benefits of detecting undiagnosed conditions?

When I saw the product launch I shared your concerns about emergency services being inundated with calls from watches detecting falls, but apparently the chief executive of the US National Emergency Number Association isn't concerned. He said this about it:

“These are the real beginnings of exciting innovation. I don’t see, at least initially, an overwhelming number of false positives coming in. But only time will tell.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45518040

I totally understand the caution medical boards use when crafting their recommendations. However, I don't think consumer access to medical screening equipment is similar. In fact, I think that empowering consumers and patients to be more in control of their medical decisions is vastly net-positive, and as the article points out, the healthcare industry is going to need to adapt to it.