26 Amendments of Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 2 #
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 for public administration, namely through improved, more inclusive and customised public services;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays an increasing role in our everyday lives and has the potential to contribute to the deployment and development of innovations in many sectors and offer benefits for consumers through innovative products and services and, for businesses, in particular micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through optimised performance;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas for the framework to be appropriate, it must cover all AI-based products and their components, including algorithms, software, and data used or produced by them;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas a common framework for the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies within the Union should both protect consumers from their potential risks and promote the trustworthiness of such technologies;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the use, deployment and development of AI applications in products might also present challenges to the existing legal framework on products and reduce their effectivenes protection of consumers, thus potentially undermining consumer trust and welfare due to their specific characteristics;
Amendment 16 #
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, in particular micro, small and medium enterprises;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the safety and liability implications of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics (COM (2020) 64) and the White Paper On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (COM(2020)65) should be considered as the basis of the future European legislation;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the Product Liability Directive is the existing regulatory framework on the responsibility for the final product;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s aim, which is to make the Union legal framework fit the new technological uses, deployments and developments, ensuring a high level of protection for consumers from harm caused by new technologies based on artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies while maintaining the balance with the needs of technological innovation;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need to assess to what extentCalls on the Commission to update the existing liability framework, and in particular the Council Directive 85/374/EEC1 (the Product Liability Directive), needs to be updated in order to guarantee highly effective consumer protection and legal clarity for businesses, while avoiding high costs and risks especially for small and medium enterprises and start- ups; __________________ 1 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29).
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recognises the challenge of determining liability where consumer harm results from autonomous decision- making processes; calls on the Commission to review that directive and consider adapting concepts as ‘product’ ‘damage’ and ‘defect’, in a way that is coherent with product safety and liability legislation, as well as adapting the rules governing the burden of proof while stressing that the burden of proof shall by no means lie on the consumer;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Further stresses the need to reassess the timeframe during which the producer is held liable for defects caused by the product, as AI driven products can become unsafe during their lifecycle due to a software update or the lack thereof; simultaneously, and in cases where the supplier cannot be held liable, it might be justified to hold the producer liable for non-supply of a software update, which can fix the safety hazard;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Points out that the revision of the Product Liability Directive should be aligned with and built on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR);
Amendment 39 #
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 Unioensure a level playing field and to avoid inequalities in consumer protection as each Member state has its own rleguislation remains limited toand it could clrearly identified problems for which feasible solutions exist and leaves room for further technological developmentste unnecessary fragmentation of the single market;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to assess whether definitions and concepts inupdate the product liability framework need to be updated due toin order to consider the specific characteristics of AI applications such as complexity, autonomy and opac, opacity and unpredictability;
Amendment 44 #
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 in line with the spirit of the current Consumer acquis, namely the definition of “good with digital elements’” under the Product LiabilityArticle 2(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/770 (the Digital Content Directive) and “goods” under Article 2(5)(b) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 (the Sale of goods Directive) and to update concepts such as ‘producer’, ‘damage’ and ‘defect’, and if so, to what extent; asks the Commission to also examine whetherurges the Commission to revise 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 particularly as the Product Liability Directive only covers personal injury, and damage to consumer property, while non-material damage, damage to data or other digital assets remain currently uncovered;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to clarify that the scope of the new legislation or the update of the Product Liability Directive should apply to all tangible and non- tangible goods, including digital services;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of ensuring a fair liability system that makes it possibleHighlights that due to the complexity, connectivity and opacity of the products based on AI and new technologies it could be difficult for consumers to prove twhat a defect in a product caused damage, even if third party software is involvedas it cannot be assumed that consumers have all necessary information or specific technical knowledge; therefore as part of the revision orf the cause of a defect is hard to trace, for example when products are part of a complex interconnected Internet of Things environmentProduct Liability Directive it should be sufficient for the consumer to demonstrate that there has been damage even if third party software is involved or the cause of a defect is hard to trace;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to revaluate whether and to what extent the burden of proof should be reversederse the burden of proof to prevent it from being placed on the consumer in order to empower harmed consumers while preventing abuse and providing legal clarity for businesses, in particular micro, small and medium enterprises;
Amendment 74 #
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 in specific sectors and uses of AI; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or more levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clarity; further considers that those involved in the different stages of the development, deployment and use of AI-based systems should be held into account in proportion of their liability; suggests the use of distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain, to improve product traceability, in order to better identify those involved in the different stages;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the need forat in the liability stage a risk based approach to AI within the existing liability framework, which takes into account different levels of risk for consumers in specific sectors and uses of AI; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or more levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clarityis not appropriate, as the damage has occurred and the product has proven to be a risk product;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to remove notion such “time at which a product is put on the market” which is no longer relevant given the dynamic features of digital goods; points out that currently the producer continues to have control over the product for a long time after having put it onto the market; urges to review the timelines for bringing a claim under the Product Liability Directive;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Stresses that the producer shall bear the liability for products from the EU, and for the products from outside EU, that are sold through online marketplace and when the producer cannot be identified, the online marketplace shall be liable as a supplier due to the fact that online marketplaces are no longer a passive intermediary;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. AsksCalls on the Commission to carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a strictaddress the liability model ofor products containing AI applications and consider in a two-step process; firstly providing a fault based liability only in specific high risk areas; underlines the need to strictly respect the proportionality principle if this approach is retained.f the deployer against which the affected person should have the right to bring the claim for damages; in the event where no fault of the deployer can be established, the producer or the backend operator should be held strictly liable; considers that the two-step process is essential in order to ensure that victims are effectively compensated for damages caused by AI driven systems;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that the new legislation about product liability should also address the challenges algorithms present in terms of ensuring non-discrimination, transparency and explainability, as well as liability; points out the need to monitor algorithms and to asses associated risks, to use high quality and unbiased datasets, as well as to help individuals acquire access to high quality products;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on the Commission to propose concreate measures (such a registry of products liability cases) to enhance transparency and to monitor defective product circulating in the EU; it is essential to ensure high consumer protection and a high degree of information about the products that could be purchased.