Everyday life
Directive (EU) 2024/2853
Product Liability Directive
Product Liability Directive (recast)
If a product — including software and AI — injures someone or damages property, it is easier to sue the company that put it on the EU market, with disclosure and presumptions built for black-box goods.
Does this hit me?
A clearer path if a gadget, an app that is a product, or an AI medical tool harms you. You still need a lawyer. This is not a no-fault insurance payout.
Check in the wizardPick a country in the header to see who enforces this at home. Union text is not the last word for directives.
Next switch-on: in 3 months · 9 Dec 2026 — Product Liability Directive recast — national law applies
How it rolls in
Nov 2024
Directive adopted.
9 Dec 2026
National law must apply; 1985 directive repealed for later products.
Why it exists
The 1985 directive did not know software, circular refurbishment, or AI. Victims lost in the fog of proof. The recast updates who is a manufacturer and what a product is.
What actually changes
- Software, AI systems and digital manufacturing files can be products.
- Online platforms and authorised representatives can sit in the liable chain when nobody in the EU is the manufacturer.
- Disclosure of evidence and presumptions of defectiveness/causality in defined cases (including when AI opacity blocks proof).
- Longer long-stop for latent harm; psychological damage recognised with limits.
How it hits you
A clearer path if a gadget, an app that is a product, or an AI medical tool harms you. You still need a lawyer. This is not a no-fault insurance payout.
For citizens
What this does to everyday life
Rights, bills, and what you can ignore. You are usually not the one who files — companies and states are.
If a product — including some software — injures you, the proof bar drops
From late 2026, courts can order companies to open the technical file, and can presume defectiveness when a black-box AI or missing evidence would otherwise win.
Rights you actually get
- Compensation for death, personal injury and specified property damage caused by a defective product.
- Disclosure tools in national procedure.
Costs and trade-offs
- You still need a lawyer. This is not an automatic payout.
What you can do
- Keep the product, the packaging, and medical records.
- Identify the importer if there is no EU brand.
What you can ignore
- A crashed app that lost you money, without injury or covered property damage, is usually not this file.
If something goes wrong
Consumer organisation, legal-aid, or a lawyer who does product claims. The 1985 directive still covers older products.
More citizen notes across files: For people
Heard this? Not quite.
Claim: Every software bug is now strict liability.
The product has to be defective and cause covered damage. Pure economic loss and most B2B software sits outside. Safety-relevant software and AI are the heat.
Latest official statements
All EU NewsNo tagged Commission, Parliament or Council statement in the current feeds.
Board one-pager
Board one-pager
Who this is for: EU consumer brands and households. Directive (EU) 2024/2853. in 3 months · 9 Dec 2026.
Scope
- You put products (including certain software) on the EU market, or you recondition them so they look new.
First 90 days
- This year: Insurance and supplier-indemnity gap vs the recast (software, AI, component stacking).
- This year: Preserve design, update and incident logs as if they will be disclosed.
- Before Dec 2026: Confirm who is ‘manufacturer’ on extra-EU SKUs.
Penalties: Damages in national courts; not an administrative fine file — but GPSR/market surveillance can run in parallel.
For companies
How to stay on the right side of this file
Practical order of work, not a substitute for counsel. Manufacturers, importers, authorised representatives and, in some cases, platforms — for products put into service after the national apply-date.
You are probably
Manufacturers, importers, authorised representatives and, in some cases, platforms — for products put into service after the national apply-date.
Effort
A scoped programme this year beats a scramble at the apply-date.
Budget
SME: owner time plus one honest vendor. Large: a named lead, not a taskforce slide.
Roles in this file
The same company can wear more than one hat. Classify before you buy a tool.
Legal / finance
This pack names Legal / finance as an owner of early work.
Insurance and supplier-indemnity gap vs the recast (software, AI, component stacking).
Quality + engineering
This pack names Quality + engineering as an owner of early work.
Preserve design, update and incident logs as if they will be disclosed.
Ops
This pack names Ops as an owner of early work.
Confirm who is ‘manufacturer’ on extra-EU SKUs.
Are you in scope?
Build toward- You put products (including certain software) on the EU market, or you recondition them so they look new.
Usually not, if
- Pure professional services with no product.
- Damage that is only economic loss without death, personal injury or covered property damage.
First moves
- This yearInsurance and supplier-indemnity gap vs the recast (software, AI, component stacking).Legal / finance
- This yearPreserve design, update and incident logs as if they will be disclosed.Quality + engineering
- Before Dec 2026Confirm who is ‘manufacturer’ on extra-EU SKUs.Ops
- If you own-brand a gadget from outside the EU, you look like a manufacturer. Price that risk.
If you skip this
- Terms of service that ‘exclude liability’ for consumer injury — they do not.
- Bricking devices in a way that wipes the evidence.
Done looks like
- Technical files
- Update logs
- Insurance policies
- Responsible-person chain
Keep this evidence
- Technical files
- Update logs
- Insurance policies
- Responsible-person chain
Ask vendors
- Who is the manufacturer of record in the EU?
- Will you preserve training and version logs for the limitation period?
Where programmes usually break
- Terms of service that ‘exclude liability’ for consumer injury — they do not.
- Bricking devices in a way that wipes the evidence.
Call counsel when
- Damages in national courts; not an administrative fine file — but GPSR/market surveillance can run in parallel.
- A supervisor letter, a dawn information request, or a deal that warrants this file.
Enforcement
Damages in national courts; not an administrative fine file — but GPSR/market surveillance can run in parallel.
National courts; no single Union product-liability agency.
Need a stack, not one file? Open the company desk
Professional briefing
Legal architecture and duties
For counsel, compliance, and policy teams. Not advice. The Official Journal still wins.
- Instrument
- Directive
- Legal basis
- Art 114 TFEU · Directive (EU) 2024/2853
- Application
- National rules apply from 9 December 2026 to products placed on the market after that date.
Strict liability recast for the software age. Defect + damage + causality, with disclosure and presumptions when the black box would otherwise win. Importers and some platforms join the liable set when no EU manufacturer exists.
How the file is built
Product includes software and AI
Digital manufacturing files and related services needed to use the product can sit in the definition.
Liable persons
Manufacturer, component manufacturer, importer, authorised representative, fulfilment in specified cases, and platforms that fail to identify the trader.
Operators
| Role | Who | Core duties |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Makes or own-brands the product, including software publishers in scope. | Safety, logs, insurance, defence file. |
Scope
Damage in the Union from products on the Union market / put into service in the Union.
In
- Movable property including software, electricity, and AI systems as products
- Integrated or interconnected components
Out, or narrower than assumed
- National-security carve-outs as transposed
- Damage under specified nuclear regimes
- Pure economic loss without covered harm
Operative provisions
| Anchor | Rule | What it does in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Arts 6–8 | Defect, damage, burden of proof and presumptions. | Preserve evidence; opacity can trigger a presumption. |
| Art 9 | Disclosure of evidence. | Litigation holds on technical files. |
| Arts 12–13 | Limitation and expiry. | Latent-harm long-stop extended vs 1985. |
Secondary law and guidance
- National transposition
- Interaction with GPSR Commission guidance
National layer. Tort procedure, damages quantum, and insurance markets are national. Transposition can go beyond the minimum on some points.
How it sits with other files
Enforcement and private rights
Who
National courts.
Tools
Damages, disclosure orders.
Private rights
This file is the private right.
Risk register
| Risk | Signal | Control |
|---|---|---|
| No EU manufacturer | Direct-from-factory store | Authorised representative with substance, not a mailbox. |
Open issues
- How courts treat open-source.
- Component vs system manufacturer fights.
- Insurance pricing.
Primary sources
If a product — including software and AI — injures someone or damages property, it is easier to sue the company that put it on the EU market, with disclosure and presumptions built for black-box goods.
You feel it now
The on-switch is still coming — do not wait for the headline.
Next
Member States apply from 9 December 2026
Where it lands
| Channel | People | Companies |
|---|---|---|
| Software and AI as products | A clearer path if a gadget, an app that is a product, or an AI medical tool harms you. You still need a lawyer. This is not a no-fault insurance payout. | A defective AI component can found a claim. Logs become evidence. |
| No EU manufacturer | A clearer path if a gadget, an app that is a product, or an AI medical tool harms you. You still need a lawyer. This is not a no-fault insurance payout. | Importers, authorised reps and some platforms step into the liable circle. |
| Disclosure | A clearer path if a gadget, an app that is a product, or an AI medical tool harms you. You still need a lawyer. This is not a no-fault insurance payout. | Courts can order you to produce technical files. Destroying them is a litigation choice. |
Who gains
Injured people who could not previously prove the black box.
Who pays
Manufacturers, importers, and their insurers.
Who pays
Manufacturers, importers, and their insurers.
Who benefits
Injured people who could not previously prove the black box.
Read the official text