Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 20

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The European Commission’s Approach To Extra-Contractual Liability and AI – A First Analysis and Evaluation of the Two Proposals

Dheu, Orian, De Bruyne, Jan, Ducuing, Charlotte·2022
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.4239792
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The European Commission recently published two Proposals which aim to adapt (tort) liability rules to the digital age, circular economy and impact of the global value chain. The ‘AI Liability Directive’ contains rules on the disclosure of information and the alleviation of the burden of proof in relation to damage caused by AI systems. The ‘revised Product Liability Directive’ substantially modifies the current regime by including software within its scope, integrating new circumstances to assess the product’s defectiveness, and introducing provisions regarding presumptions of defectiveness and causation. In this research paper, we first analyse the scope of both Proposals and discuss the major provisions. We will thereby focus on the presumptions of fault and causality as well as on the meaning of crucial notions such as ‘product’, ‘duty of care’ or ‘economic operator’. We will illustrate the main provisions of both Proposals with visuals to increase their understandability. Once the scope of each Proposal has been discussed, we will analyse the strengths as well as remaining challenges. Although we welcome both Proposals for several reasons outlined in the research paper, different unclarities will need to be resolved. These i.e. relate to the unclarity of terms, the position of claimants, the interaction with other supranational initiatives and the many interpretation issues with regard to the fault-based liability regime. This paper paves the way for future research and collaboration on this topic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4239792

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. See e.g. S. Lohsse et al., 'Liability for Artificial intelligence', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds.), Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 15;
  2. See e.g. M. Veale and F. Zuiderveen Borgesius, 'Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act', Computer Law Review International, 2021, vol. 4, p. 111;
  3. M. Ebers e.a., 'The European Commission's Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act-A Critical Assessment by Members of the Robotics and AI Law Society (RAILS)', J -Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 2021, vol. 4, n° 4, p. 600. See extensively: N. Smuha et al., 'How the EU Can Achieve Legally Trustworthy AI: A Response to the European Commission's Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act', 31 August 2021, p. 44-53. 89 AI Liability Directive, Art. 1.4. 90 AI Liability Directive, Art.1.3 (d).
  4. Article 5.2 of the AI Liability Directive. See on the interaction between tort law and insurance e.g. R. Merkin and J. Steele, 'Chapter 9. Compulsory Liability Insurance', in Insurance and the Law of Obligations, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 251 and following; G. Wagner, 115 A. Bertolini, 'Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability', Study requested by the JURI committee, July 2020, p. 84. 116
  5. J. Tanghe and J. De Bruyne, 'Software aan het stuur. Aansprakelijkheid voor schade veroorzaakt door autonome motorrijtuigen', in T. Vansweevelt en B. Weyts (eds.), Nieuwe risico's in het aansprakelijkheids-en verzekeringsrecht, Intersentia, 2018, p. 56-57;
  6. T. S. Cabral, 'Liability and artificial intelligence in the EU: Assessing the adequacy of the current Product Liability Directive', Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2020, vol 27, n°5, p. 615-635;
  7. B. Koch, 'Product Liability 2.0 -Mere Update or New Version?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 97-116. 177 Expert Report 2019, p.
  8. See on the apprehension of AI's defectiveness; J.-S. Borghtetti, 'How can Artificial Intelligence be Defective?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 63-76. 178 Revised PLD, Rec. (15) and Art. 4 (3). 179 Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, OJ L 136/28 (Sales of Goods Directive), Art. 2.5.(b). 180 For an analysis of such development in (connected and automated) vehicle safety regulation, see C. Ducuing, 'Chapter 8. Towards an Obligation to Secure Connected and Automated Vehicles "by Design"?', in Security and Law, KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law Series, Intersentia, 2019, p. 194-196. 181 See on the discussions on the legal qualification of software (as tangible) product or service e.g. European Commission, Report on the safety and liability implications of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics, February 2020, p. 14; J. De Bruyne, E. Van Gool and T. Gils, 'Tort Law and Damage Caused by AI Systems', in J. De Bruyne and C. Vanleenhove, Artificial Intelligence and the Law , Intersentia, 2021, p. 377-380;
  9. A. Bertolini, 'Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability', Study requested by JURI committee, July 2020, p. 57; J. Tanghe en J. De Bruyne, 'Software aan het stuur. Aansprakelijkheid voor schade veroorzaakt door autonome motorrijtuigen', in T. Vansweevelt en B. Weyts (eds.), Nieuwe risico's in het aansprakelijkheids-en verzekeringsrecht, Intersentia, 2018, Intersentia, p. 56-57;
  10. J.-S. Borghtetti, 'How can Artificial Intelligence be Defective?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 63-72. 184 See for example ECJ, 5 March 2015, C-503/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:148, Boston Scientific, consideration 39;
  11. J. De Bruyne and J. Tanghe, 'Liability for Damage Caused by Autonomous Vehicles: A Belgian Perspective', Journal of European Tort Law, 2017, vol 8, n°3, p. 362. See also T. Malengreau, 'Automatisation de la conduite: quelles responsabilités en droit belge? (Première partie)', RGAR, 2019, n°5, p. 15578, n°27. 185
  12. See J.-S. Borghetti, 'How can Artificial Intelligence be Defective?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 63 and following; J. De Bruyne and J. Tanghe, 'Liability for Damage Caused by Autonomous Vehicles: A Belgian Perspective', Journal of European Tort Law, 2017, vol 8, n°3, p. 358-362.
  13. Contra B. Koch, 'Product Liability 2.0 -Mere Update or New Version?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds.), Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 107-109. 186 Expert Report 2019, p. 28. 187 Under this defence, the producer will not be held liable if he/she proves that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he/she put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered, PLD, Art. 7 (e), and Belgian Product Liability Act, Art. 8 (e). 188 Expert Report 2019, p. 28. 189 European Commission, 'White Paper On Artificial Intelligence -A European approach to excellence and trust', p. 13; See also: J. De Bruyne, E. Van Gool and T. Gils, 'Tort Law and Damage Caused by AI Systems' in J. De Bruyne & C. Vanleenhove (eds.), Artificial Intelligence and the Law, Intersentia, 2021, p. 381-382. 190 Revised PLD, Art. 6.1. 192 See for instance: A. Bertolini, 'Artificial Intelligence and civil liability', Study requested by the JURI committee, 2020, p. 47-62. See also: Expert Report 2019, p. 27-28. 193 European Commission, 'Third report on the application of Council Directive on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, COM/2006/0496 final', 2006, p. 9. 194
  14. R. de Bruin, 'Autonomous Intelligent Cars on the European Intersection of Liability and Privacy', European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2016, vol 7, n°3, p. 491;
  15. D. Wuyts, 'The Product Liability Directive -More than Two Decades of Defective Products in Europe', Journal of European Tort Law, 2014, vol 5, n°1, p. 24. 195 Expert Report 2019, p. 20. 196 J.-S. Borghetti, 'How can Artificial Intelligence be Defective?', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p.
  16. as referred to in M. Buiten et al., 'EU Liability Rules for the Age of Artificial Intelligence', Centre on Regulation in Europe, 9 April 2021, p. 55. 197 See e.g. D. Fairgrieve et al, 'The Product Liability Directive: Time to Get Soft', Journal of European Tort Law, 2013, vol. 4, n°1, p. 5-9. See extensively C. Van Dam, European Tort Law, Oxford University Press, 2013, 654 p. 198
  17. C. de Meeus, 'The Product Liability Directive at the Age of the Digital Industrial Revolution: Fit for Innovation?', Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 2019, vol 8, n°4, p. 152 referring to S. Beck, 'The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics', AI & Society, 2016, vol 31, n°4, p. 474. 199
  18. See extensively: M. Martin-Casals, 'Causation and Scope of Liability in the Internet of Things', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds.), Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 201-228. 200 See for an analysis of causation in the context of autonomous vehicles in Belgium: M. Kruithof and T. Verheyen, 'Toerekening van verkeersongevallen aan autonome motorvoertuigen', in J. De Bruyne (ed.), Autonome motorvoertuigen. Een multidisciplinair onderzoek naar de maatschappelijke impact, Vanden Broele, 2021, p. 239-270. 201
  19. ; J. De Bruyne et al., 'Tort Law and Damage Caused by AI Systems', in J. De Bruyne and C. Vanleenhove (eds.), Artificial Intelligence and the Law, Intersentia, 2021, p. 398. 203
  20. B.A. Koch et al., 'Response of the European Law Institute to the Public Consultation on Civil Liability Adapting Liability Rules to the Digital Age and Artificial Intelligence', Journal of European Tort Law, vol. 13, n°1, 2022, p. 52;
  21. C. Twigg-Flesner et al., 'Guiding Principles for Updating the Product Liability Directive for the Digital Age', ELI innovation paper series, 2022, p. 9-10. 204 Expert Report 2019, p. 42. 205 G. Wagner, 'Robot Liability', in S. Lohsse et al. (eds.), Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p.
  22. C. de Meeus, 'The Product Liability Directive at the Age of the Digital Industrial Revolution: Fit for Innovation?', Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, 2019, vol 8, n°4, p. 152. 206 See e.g. R. de Bruin, R 'Autonomous Intelligent Cars on the European Intersection of Liability and Privacy', European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2016, vol. 7, p. 495. 207 Revised PLD, Art. 8. 208 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of 27 November 2019 on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, OJ L 325/1, consolidated version, Art. 3 (13), 6 (1) (g) and (4).
  23. C. Wendehorst, 'Safety and Liability Related Aspects of Software', European Commission, July 2021, p. 68-69. 216 See for an analysis of the impact of proposed cybersecurity requirements for vehicles under international and EU law, C. Ducuing, 'Chapter
  24. Towards an Obligation to Secure Connected and Automated Vehicles "by Design"?' in: Security and Law: Legal and Ethical Aspects of Public Security, Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Security, Intersentia, 2019, p. 183-213. The author notably establishes that obligations to update and upgrade result in an extension of manufacturer's responsibility beyond the putting into circulation (see section 4.2. in that contribution). 217 Revised PLD, Art. 6.1 (e), Art. 10.1 (e), Art. 10.2 and Rec. (37). 218 For an analysis of this development concerning (connected and automated) vehicle product safety regulation, see C. Ducuing, 'Chapter 8. Towards an Obligation to Secure Connected and Automated Vehicles "by Design"?', in Security and Law, KU Leuven Centre for IT & IP Law Series, Intersentia, 2019, p. 196-198. 219 Expert Report 2019, p. 28. 221 Product Liability Directive, Rec.
  25. Bocken argues that it concerns the consumer as part of a group (H. Bocken, 'Buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid voor gebrekkige producten', in X. (ed.), Bijzondere overeenkomsten -PUC W. Delva nr. 34, Kluwer, 2008, p. 367. 222 Cass. 26 September 2003, Arr.Cass., 2003, p. 1765, RW, 2004-05, p. 22, annotation by B. Weyts; Court of Appeal Antwerp 13 April 2005, RW, 2008-09, p. 803; Court of Appeal Antwerp 28 October 2009, TBBR, 2011, p. 381, noot D. Verhoeven; H. Bocken and I. Boone with cooperation by M. Kruithof, Inleiding tot het schadevergoedingsrecht, Die Keure, 2014, p. 196;
  26. H. Jacquemin and J.-B. Hubin, 'Aspects contractuels et de responsabilité civile en matière d'intelligence artificielle', in: Intelligence artificielle et droit, Larcier, 2017, p. 131. See in this regard also ECJ, Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2015:148, 5 March 2015, paras 38-39 ('The safety which the public at large is entitled to expect, in accordance with that provision, must therefore be assessed by taking into account, inter alia, the intended purpose, the objective characteristics and properties of the product in question and the specific requirements of the group of users for whom the product is intended. 39. With regard to medical devices such as the pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators at issue in the main proceedings, it is clear that, in the light of their function and the particularly vulnerable situation of patients using such devices, the safety requirements for those devices which such patients are entitled to expect are particularly high') and scholarship addressing the entitled safety expectations (e.g. D. Fairgrieve and M. Pilgerstorfer, 'European Product Liability after Boston Scientific: An Assessment of the Court's Judgment on Defect, Damage and Causation', European Business Law Review, vol. 28, n° 6, 2017, 893-896 eventually concluding that 'Despite these comments, we do not consider that the Court intended to depart from its more general comments and an objective test'). 223 Revised PLD, Art. 6.1 (b). 224 Revised PLD, Art. 6.1 (b). 225 Revised PLD Art. 7.4. 226 Revised PLD, Art. 8.1. 227 Revised PLD, Art. 8.2. 228 Revised PLD, Art. 8.2. 229 See on the qualification of software also part 4.2.2. with references. 230
  27. S. Cabral, 'Liability and artificial intelligence in the EU: Assessing the adequacy of the current Product Liability Directive', Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2020, vol. 27 n° 5, p. 56. 231 As a reminder, components are defined in the revised PLD as 'any item, whether tangible or intangible, or any related service that is integrated into, or inter-connected with, a product by the manufacturer of that product or within that manufacturer's control', Revised PLD, Art. 4.3. 232 Revised PLD, Art. 7.1 paragraph 1. 233 Revised PLD, Art. 7.1 paragraph 2. 234 Revised PLD, Art. 11 and Rec. (40). 244 Ecodesign Regulation Proposal, Art. 8.2. (g). 245 Revised PLD, Art. 7.4. 246 The crosscutting nature of DPPs necessarily implies that they may impinge on other legal frameworks, which shall be carefully assessed.
  28. See C. Ducuing, Towards the Regulation of Product Passports as an Enabler for the Circular Economy -A Primer, Presentation at the ELI Environmental Law SIG seminar series, 19.05.2022, available at https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/hubs-sigs/sigs/environmental-law- sig/events/news/eli-environmental-law-sig-held-a-seventh-seminar-in-its-2022-seminar-series- 1/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash=5a308027b02624bf9798d3fb1a46805c. 247 See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sl/ip_22_5807. 248 See on the concept of a multi-layered accountable liability for AI also G. Comandé, 'Multilayered (Accountable) Liability for Artificial Intelligence', in S. Lohsse et al. (ed) Liability for Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things: Münster Colloquia on EU Law and the Digital Economy IV, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, p. 165-183. 249 Expert Report 2019, p. 36. 250 Ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence -CAHAI, 'Feasibility Study', CAHAI(2020)23, 17 December 2020, p. 38, n° 113. 251
  29. J. De Bruyne, E. Van Gool and A. Boes, 'Wat bracht 2022 en wat brengt de toekomst op het vlak van artificiële intelligentie en buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid?', in T. Vansweevelt and B. Weyts, Verslagboek van het IVde Interuniversitair Congres Aansprakelijkheids-en Verzekeringsrecht, Intersentia, 2022, forthcoming. 257 See e.g. C. Prins and J. Roest, 'AI en de rechtspraak', Nederlands Juristenblad, 2018, vol. 93, p. 262-263. 258

Cited by

See all 20

Metadata

Authors
Dheu, O., De Bruyne, J., & Ducuing, C.
ORCID
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.4239792
Cited by
20
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The European Commission’s Approach To Extra-Contractual Liability and AI – A First Analysis and Evaluation of the Two Proposals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2139/ssrn.4239792
The paper
Dheu, O., De Bruyne, J., & Ducuing, C. (2022). The European Commission’s Approach To Extra-Contractual Liability and AI – A First Analysis and Evaluation of the Two Proposals. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4239792

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.