Activities of Marcel KOLAJA related to 2020/2014(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence
Amendments (12)
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the complexity of AI applications can make it nearly impossible to prove fault or damage in certain cases, presents new challenges as regards the burden of proof;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that any update of the Product liability framework should go hand in hand with the update of Directive 2001/95/EC (the Product Safety Directive) in order to ensure that AI systems integrate safety and security by design principles;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Highlights incentivisation of increased ex-ante investment in security by developers of AI systems as a suggested approach in order to improve security; highlights that public source code disclosure would incentivise secure software development while making it economically and legally more attractive;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that any revision of the existing liability framework should aim to further harmonise liability rules in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market; stresses, however, the importance of ensuring that Union regulation remains limited to clearly identified problems for which feasible solutions exist and leaves room for further technological developments, including free and open source software;
Amendment 47 #
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; 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 and to consider privacy-by-design and security-by-design rule as reasonable expectation of the consumers for their digital products;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of ensuring a fair liability system in the chain of commercial transaction that makes it possible for consumers to prove that a defect in a product caused damage, even if third party software is involved or the cause of a defect is harddifficult to trace, for example when products are part of a complex interconnected Internet of Things environment;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate whether and to what extent the burden of proof should be reversedpropose a reversal of the burden of proof in specific cases and based on clear criteria, in order to empower harmed consumers while preventing abuse and providing legal clarity for businesses;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights that the development- risk principle in line with point (e) of Article 7of Council Directive 85/374/EEC proved to be important and reasonable;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Underlines that explainability, interpretability and traceability of AI systems are key to ensure that liability mechanisms offer an adequate, efficient and fair allocation of responsibilities; therefore asks the Commission to issue binding rules for companies to publish transparency reports including the existence, functionality, process, main criteria, the logic behind, the data sets used and possible outcome of algorithmic systems and efforts to identify, prevent and mitigate damage caused by AI systems in a timely, accurate, easily- readable, and accessible manner;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Calls on the Commission to issue binding rules for companies and public bodies to document the development of AI systems; notes in this regard that it is essential for the risk assessment documentation, the software documentation, the algorithms and data sets used to be fully accessible to market surveillance authorities, while respecting Union law; additional prerogatives should be given to market surveillance authorities in this respect;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the need for a risk based approach to AI within the existing liability framework, which takes into account different levels of risk for consumers and society at large in specific sectors and uses of AI; algorithmic systems that may cause physical or material damage, breach fundamental rights and freedoms, impact an individual’s access to critical resources, or impact their participation in society shall not be deemed to be in the lowest risk category; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or moreseveral levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clarityertainty and be subject to regular re-evaluation;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Asks the Commission to carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of introducinge a strict liability model for products containing AI applications and consider it only in specific higher risk areas; underlines the need to strictly respect the proportionality principle if this approach is retainedand have a clear list of criteria agreed by the co-legislators.