EU revised Product Liability Directive (covering software and AI systems)

Before placing a product on the EU market, identify who will be the EU-based liable operator under Art. 8(1): the importer, the authorised representative, or where neither exists the fulfilment service provider; and agree in supply contracts the allocation of liability, insurance, evidence cooperation and recourse. Note also Art. 8(3): where no Art. 8(1) operator established in the Union can be identified, a distributor becomes liable if the injured person asks it to identify such an operator or its own supplying distributor and it fails to do so within one month of the request; Art. 8(4) extends this to qualifying online platform providers.

Applies when

Chinese companies selling robots, smart hardware or AI software into the EU. A practical warning: many Chinese vendors ship on a distributor-buyout basis and assume liability transfers with title; in fact the manufacturer remains primarily liable and an EU distributor sued under the Directive will seek contractual recourse upstream.

Deadline: To be in place before placing products on the EU market after 9 Dec 2026.

Applies from: 2026-12-09

Evidence to retain

• · EU liable-operator mapping by product line and sales channel
• · Liability and recourse clauses with importers, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers
• · Product liability insurance policy and an adequacy assessment of the cover
• · Process for answering distributor identification requests within the one-month deadline

Estimated first-time effort: 5–15 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

Because Art. 7(2)(c) requires the effect of any ability to continue to learn or acquire new features after placing on the market to be taken into account when assessing defectiveness, and Art. 11(2) removes the defence where defectiveness is due to software, software updates or upgrades, or the lack of updates necessary to maintain safety within the manufacturer’s control, companies must bring model iteration, online learning and OTA updates into safety lifecycle management: run a safety impact assessment, regression testing and rollback design for every model or firmware change, ship updates promptly for known safety defects, and retain an evidence chain sufficient to show both that the product was not defective when placed on the market and that safety has been maintained since.

Applies when

Embodied-AI and autonomous driving vendors are most exposed: harm caused by behavioural drift in a robot that keeps learning on a customer site will be assessed under this Directive, and "the model taught itself badly" is not a defence.

Applies from: 2026-12-09

Evidence to retain

• · Model and firmware version ledger including a snapshot of the baseline shipped at placing on the market
• · Safety impact assessment and regression test report for each change
• · Release and reach records for safety updates
• · Design and operating evidence for online-learning boundaries and drift monitoring

Estimated first-time effort: 15–40 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

Art. 9 requires that, where a claimant has presented facts and evidence sufficient to support the plausibility of a compensation claim, the defendant must disclose relevant evidence at its disposal; conversely, where a defendant has presented facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate its need for evidence to counter a claim, the claimant must disclose relevant evidence at its disposal in accordance with national law. Disclosure must be limited to what is necessary and proportionate, and in assessing that, national courts must consider the legitimate interests of all parties including third parties, in particular the protection of confidential information and trade secrets; where a defendant is required to disclose a trade secret or alleged trade secret, courts are empowered, on a duly reasoned request of a party or of their own motion, to take protective measures. Companies should plan accordingly for which technical evidence must be retrievable, explainable and producible while protecting trade secrets.

Applies when

Chinese companies selling AI products into the EU. The practical implication is that if operating logs, model version records, test reports and safety assessments cannot be retrieved and explained in litigation, the company will be at a disadvantage on the facts; it should also pre-classify which materials are trade secrets and prepare the reasoning for protective measures.

Applies from: 2026-12-09

Evidence to retain

• · Technical evidence retention policy covering scope, period and retrievability
• · Trade secret classification markings and a template request for protective measures
• · Verification that operating logs and model version records can be exported
• · Records of an internal legal and engineering evidence-production drill

Estimated first-time effort: 8–20 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

Any natural or legal person that substantially modifies a product outside the manufacturer’s control and thereafter makes it available on the market or puts it into service is considered the manufacturer of that product for the purposes of the Directive (Art. 8(2)); correspondingly, Art. 11(1)(g) exempts such a modifier that proves the defectiveness causing the damage relates to a part of the product unaffected by the modification. Companies should define permitted and prohibited alterations clearly in product documentation and channel contracts, and set up an approval and record-keeping mechanism for secondary development by system integrators and distributors so that liability boundaries are determinable.

Applies when

Chinese robotics and industrial AI companies delivering through system integrators. Secondary development performed by an EU integrator for the end customer — swapping end effectors, replacing perception modules, altering control parameters — may amount to substantial modification and put the integrator in the position of deemed manufacturer. That is both an opportunity to shift risk and a reason to set the conditions clearly in contracts and documentation.

Applies from: 2026-12-09

Evidence to retain

• · Product documentation clauses defining permitted and prohibited alterations
• · Alteration approval and notification duties in channel and integrator contracts
• · Approval records for secondary development and the as-shipped configuration baseline
• · Written confirmations of liability allocation following alterations

Estimated first-time effort: 5–15 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)