Activities of Geert BOURGEOIS related to 2020/2014(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence
Amendments (7)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays an increasing role in our everyday lives and has the potential to contribute to the development of innovations in many sectors and offer benefits for consumers through innovative products and services and, for businesses, through optimised performance and increased competitiveness;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the use and development of AI applications in products might also present challenges to the existing legal framework on products and reduce their effectiveneswhich is not necessarily adapted to these new applications, thus potentially undermining consumer trust and welfare due to their specific characteristics; believes, however, that this should not lead to reactionary regulation but on the contrary calls for a policy based on reflection and enhancing trust;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas robust liability mechanisms remedying damage contribute to better protection of consumers, creation of trust in new technologies integrated in products and acceptance for innovation while ensuring legal certainty for business; underlines that in order to build acceptance, the theoretical benefits of artificial intelligence should also contribute effectively to wellbeing and development;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s aim, which is to make the Union legal framework fit the new technological developments, ensuring a high level of protection for consumers from possible harm caused by new technologies while maintaining the balance with the needs ofobjective of digitisation of industrial and consumer products and supporting technological innovation;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to assess whether definitions and concepts in the product liability framework need to be updated due to the specific characteristics of AI applications such as complexity, autonomy and opacity, in particular to account for changes in the applications that may occur autonomously after the product has been placed on the market;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to scrutinise whether it is necessary to include software in the definition of ‘products’ under the Product Liability Directive and to update concepts such as ‘producer’, ‘damage’ and ‘defect’, and if so, to what extent; recommends that the basic distinction between a producer and its product, in this case, an artificial intelligence application, should remain and AI should not be granted its own autonomous personality; asks the Commission to also examine whether the product liability framework needs to be revised in order to protect injured parties efficiently as regards products that are purchased as a bundle with related services;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate whether and to what extent the burden of proof should be reversed in order to empower harmed consumers while preventing abuse and providing legal clarity for businesses; stresses that any such finding, where demonstrated necessary, should be limited in scope;