2022/0302(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17

(17) In the interests of legal certainty, it should be clarified that personal injury includes medically recognised damage to psychological health, to the extent that such damage is harmful to a person’s general health.

Amendment 103 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) ~~While~~ Member States should provide full and proper compensation for all material losses resulting from death, or personal injury, or damage to or destruction of property and data loss or corruption~~, rules on calculating compensation should be laid down by Member States. Furthermore, this Directive should not affect national rules relating to non-material damage~~. Member States should ensure that their national rules on calculating compensation allow for injured persons to obtain full and proper compensation from the economic operator who is ultimately attributable, or from any relevant party.

Amendment 104 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) While Member States should provide full and proper compensation for all material losses resulting from death, or personal injury, or damage to or destruction of property ~~and data loss or corruption~~, rules on calculating compensation should be laid down by Member States. Furthermore, this Directive should not affect national rules relating to non-material damage.

Amendment 105 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) While Member States should provide full and proper compensation for all material and non-material losses resulting from death, or personal injury, or damage to or destruction of property ~~and~~, data loss ~~or corruption~~, corruption theft or unauthorised copying and pure economic loss, rules on calculating compensation should be laid down by Member States. ~~Furthermore, this Directive should not affect national rules relating to non-material damage.~~

Amendment 106 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) While Member States should provide full, proportionate and proper compensation for all material losses resulting from death, or personal injury, or damage to or destruction of property ~~and data loss or corruption~~, rules on calculating compensation should be laid down by Member States. Furthermore, this Directive should not affect national rules relating to non-material damage.

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) In the interest of legal certainty, claimants should be able to request compensation for non-material damage even if the damage that triggered a claim for compensation under this Directive is of material nature. This is the case as material damages resulting from, for example, personal injury might result on both material and non-material losses, such as loss of income due to medical treatment or pain and suffering.

Amendment 108 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) Member States should provide full and proper compensation for non- material damage under the conditions provided by this Directive.

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 b (new)

(18b) Claimants should also be able to launch claims based on non-material damages. The special characteristics of digital products and services, its complexity, opacity, vulnerability to cyberattacks, the ability of being modified through updates as well as the capacity for self-learning make digital products more susceptible of creating non-material damages. For instance, digital products can cause violations to privacy rights. A defect by a smart device may in itself present a non-material damage or may lead to reputational damage if personal data is accessible for third parties. Similarly, biased data that feeds digital technologies designed to take decisions such as on recruitment may lead to name or reputational damage. While the likeliness that analogue products cause immaterial damages is lower than the likeliness that digital products cause non- material harm, most Member States’ national legal orders do foresee compensation against non-material damages. Hence, in view of the proliferation of emerging digital technologies, it would be necessary to clarify at Union level that products, including digital products, can create non-material harm and that the damage needs to be compensated accordingly. Claimants should, therefore, be able to trigger a claim for compensation under this Directive based on non-material damages. Rules on calculating compensation for such damages should be laid down by Member States.

Amendment 110 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) In order to protect consumers, damage to any property owned by a natural person should be compensated. Since property is increasingly used for both private and professional purposes, it is appropriate to provide for the compensation of damage to such mixed- use property. ~~In light of this Directive’s aim to protect consumers, property used exclusively for professional purposes should be excluded from its scope~~Property used exclusively for professional purposes by small and micro enterprises should be covered by this Directive unless bilateral arrangements are specified in a separated contract between stakeholders.

Amendment 111 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) This Directive should apply to products placed on the market or, where relevant, put into service in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge, for example products supplied in the context of a sponsoring campaign or products manufactured for the provision of a service financed by public funds, since this mode of supply still has an economic or business character. Neither the collaborative development of free and open-source software nor making them available on open repositories should constitute a placing on the market or putting into service. A commercial activity, within the understanding of making available on the market, might however be characterised by charging a price, with the exception of transactions between micro enterprises for a free software component but also by charging a price for technical support services, by providing a software platform through which the provider monetises other services, or by the use of personal data for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility, interoperability or interoperability of the software. Occasional supplies by charities or hobbyists should not be considered as taking place in a business related context.

Amendment 112 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) This Directive should apply to products placed on the market or, where relevant, put into service in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or, free of charge, or in exchange of personal data, for example products supplied in the context of a sponsoring campaign or products manufactured for the provision of a service financed by public funds, since this mode of supply still has an economic or business character.

Amendment 113 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) This Directive should not affect the various means of seeking redress at national level, whether through court proceedings, non-court solutions, alternative dispute resolution or representative actions under Directive (EU) 2020/182845of the European Parliament and of the Council or under national collective redress schemes. This Directive should also cover such instances in Member States where damages of injured parties are transferred to the carrier of an insurance by way of legal assignment, considering that there are benefits due to the insurance relationship. Insurance institutions as legal persons should therefore also have the right to assert claims for damages. _________________ 45 Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1).

Amendment 114 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)

(21a) Taking account of the increased complexity of the products, of the businesses models and the supply chains, and considering that the aim of this directive is to ensure that consumers can easily exercise their right to get compensation in case of damage caused by defective products, Member States should ensure that competent national consumer protection authorities and bodies provide to affected consumers with all relevant information and tailored guidance to be able to effectively exercise their rights to compensation, in accordance with the provisions set out in this Directive. National consumer protection agencies and bodies should regularly exchange relevant information they became aware of and closely cooperate with the market surveillance authorities.

Amendment 115 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22

(22) In order to protect the health and property of consumers, the defectiveness of a product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety that the public at large is entitled to expect. The assessment of defectiveness should involve an objective analysis and not refer to the safety that any particular person is entitled to expect. The safety that the public at large is entitled to expect should be assessed by taking into account, inter alia, the ~~intended purpose~~reasonably foreseeable use, the presentation, the objective characteristics and the properties of the product in question as well as its expected lifespan, security features, and the specific requirements of the group of users for whom the product is intended. In addition, the compliance with relevant product safety requirements laid down in Union and national law should also be taken into account, in particular if such a non-compliance enhanced the risk of causing harm of the relevant type suffered by the injured person and that risk has materialised. However, the economic operator should not be liable if it proves that the harm suffered by the injured person would have also been caused if it would have complied with the relevant mandatory requirements under Union and national law. Some products, such as life- sustaining medical devices, entail an especially high risk of damage to people and therefore give rise to particularly high safety expectations. In order to take such expectations into account, it should be possible for a court to find a product defective without establishing its actual defectiveness, where it belongs to the same production series as a product already proven to be defective.

Amendment 116 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22

(22) In order to protect the health and property of consumers, the defectiveness of a product should be determined by reference not to its fitness for use but to the lack of the safety that the public at large is entitled to expect as well as to its compliance with standards of safety, consumer protection and data protection. The assessment of defectiveness should involve an objective analysis and not refer to the safety that any particular person is entitled to expect. The safety that the public at large is entitled to expect should be assessed by taking into account, inter alia, the intended purpose, the objective characteristics and the properties of the product in question as well as the specific requirements of the group of users for whom the product is intended. Some products, such as life- sustaining medical devices, entail an especially high risk of damage to people and therefore give rise to particularly high safety expectations. In order to take such expectations into account, it should be possible for a court to find a product defective without establishing its actual defectiveness, where it belongs to the same production series as a product already proven to be defective.

Amendment 117 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22

Amendment 118 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 23

(23) In order to reflect the increasing prevalence of inter-connected products, the assessment of a product’s safety should also take into account the reasonably foreseeable effects of other products on the product in question. The effect on a product’s safety of its ability to learn after ~~deployment~~it is placed on the market or put into service should also be taken into account, to reflect the legitimate expectation that a product’s software and underlying algorithms are designed in such a way as to prevent hazardous product behaviour. In order to reflect that in the digital age many products remain within the manufacturer’s control beyond the moment at which they are placed on the market, the moment in time at which a product leaves the manufacturer’s control should also be taken into account in the assessment of a product’s safety. A product can also be found to be defective on account of its cybersecurity vulnerability.

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24

(24) In order to reflect the relevance of product safety and market surveillance legislation for determining the level of safety that the public at large is entitled to expect, it should be clarified that safety requirements, including safety requirements laid down in Union and National law or safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements, and interventions by regulatory authorities, such as issuing product recalls, or by economic operators themselves, should also be taken into account in that assessment. ~~Such~~Voluntary interventions should, however, not of themselves create a presumption of defectiveness.

Amendment 120 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 24

(24) In order to reflect the relevance of product safety and market surveillance legislation for determining the level of safety that ~~the public at large is~~consumers are entitled to expect, it should be clarified that safety requirements, including safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements, and interventions by regulatory authorities, such as issuing product recalls, or by economic operators themselves, should also be taken into account in that assessment. Such interventions should, however, not of themselves create a presumption of defectiveness.

Amendment 121 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25

(25) In the interests of consumer choice and in order to encourage innovation, research and easy access to new technologies, the existence, or subsequent placing, on the market of a better product should not in itself lead to the conclusion that a previous product is defective. Equally, the supply of updates or upgrades to a product should not in itself lead to the conclusion that a previous version of the product is defective, and this should be mentioned when the updated version is placed on the market.

Amendment 122 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 26

(26) The protection of the consumer requires that any manufacturer involved in the production process can be made liable, in so far as their product or a component supplied by them is defective. Where a manufacturer integrates a defective component from another manufacturer into a product, an injured person should be able to seek compensation for the same damage from either the manufacturer of the product or from the manufacturer of the component. Due to the nature of software made available under free and open- source licences, the developer of a free and open-source software should not be made liable for a defect except to the extent the developer has placed it on the market or put it into service. Free and open-source software is often integrated in products whose ultimate use and purpose are very different from the ones initially designed by the developers. Potential defects and damages could have not been foreseen by the developers, but only by the economic operator that integrated the free and open-source software into a product or that has deployed it. That economic operator should be made liable in front of the injured person.

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27

(27) In order to ensure that injured persons have an enforceable claim for compensation where a manufacturer is established outside the Union or cannot be identified, it should be possible to hold jointly and severally liable the importer of the product ~~and~~, the authorised representative of the manufacturer ~~liable~~, the fulfilment service provider and the distributor of the product. Practical experience of market surveillance has shown that supply chains sometimes involve economic operators whose novel form means that they do not fit easily into the traditional supply chains under the existing legal framework. Such is the case, in particular, with fulfilment service providers, which perform many of the same functions as importers but which might not always correspond to the traditional definition of importer in Union law. In light of the role of fulfilment service providers as economic operators in the product safety and market surveillance framework, in particular in Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council46, it should be possible to hold them liable, but given the subsidiary nature of that role, they should be liable only where no importer or authorised representative is based in the Union. In the interests of channelling liability in an effective manner towards manufacturers, importers, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers, it should be possible to hold distributors liable only where they fail to promptly identify a relevant economic operator based in the Union. _________________ 46 Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1).

Amendment 124 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27

(27) In order to ensure that injured persons have an enforceable claim for compensation where a manufacturer is established outside the Union, it should be possible to hold the importer of the product and the authorised representative of the manufacturer liable. The authorized representative should be verifiable and have access to personnel with sufficient and relevant knowledge and experience to have a meaningful impact. Practical experience of market surveillance has shown that supply chains sometimes involve economic operators whose novel form means that they do not fit easily into the traditional supply chains under the existing legal framework. Such is the case, in particular, with fulfilment service providers, which perform many of the same functions as importers but which might not always correspond to the traditional definition of importer in Union law. In light of the role of fulfilment service providers as economic operators in the product safety and market surveillance framework, in particular in Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council46, it should be possible to hold them liable, but given the subsidiary nature of that role, they should be liable only where no importer or authorised representative is based in the Union. In the interests of channelling liability in an effective manner towards manufacturers, importers, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers, it should be possible to hold distributors liable only where they fail to promptly identify a relevant economic operator based in the Union. _________________ 46 Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1).

Amendment 125 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

(28) Online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market such as online platforms. [Regulation […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)] and [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] regulate, inter alia, the responsibility and accountability of online platforms with regard to illegal content, including products. When online platforms perform the role of manufacturer, importer or distributor in respect of a defective product, they should be liable on the same terms as such economic operators. When online platforms play a mere intermediary role in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are covered by a conditional liability exemption under the Digital Services Act. However, the Digital Services Act establishes that online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders are not exempt from liability under consumer protection law where they present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction in question in a way that would lead an average consumer to believe that the product is provided either by the online platform itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control. In keeping with this principle, when online platforms do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them liable, in the same way as distributors under this Directive. That means that they would be liable only when they do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, and only where the online platform fails to promptly identify a relevant economic operator based in the Uniondefective, dangerous and counterfeit products.

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market such as online platforms. [Regulation […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)] and [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] regulate, inter alia, the responsibility and accountability of online platforms with regard to illegal content, including products. When online platformsOnline platforms may, for example, perform the role of manufacturer, importer or distributor in respect of a defective product~~, t~~. They should be liable on the same terms as such economic operators. When online platforms play a mere intermediary role in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are covered by a conditional liability exemption under the Digital Services Act. However, the Digital Services Act establishes that online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders are not exempt from liability under consumer protection law where they present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction in question in a way that would lead an average consumer to believe that the product is provided either by the online platform itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control. In keeping with this principle, when online platforms do so present the product or otherwise enablthen be deemed an economic operator and be the ~~specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them~~ld liable~~, i~~ on the same way as distributors under this Directive. That means that they would be liable only when they do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, and only where the online platform fails to promptly identify a relevant economic operator based in the Unionterms as such economic operators.

Amendment 127 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market such as online platforms. [Regulation […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)] and [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] regulate, inter alia, the responsibility and accountability of online platforms with regard to illegal content, including products. When online platforms perform the role of manufacturer, importer or distributor in respect of a defective product, they should be liable ~~on the same terms as such~~as economic operators. When online platforms play a mere intermediary role in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are covered by a conditional liability exemption under the Digital Services Act. However, the Digital Services Act establishes that online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders are not exempt from liability under consumer protection law where they present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction in question in a way that would lead an average consumer to believe that the product is provided either by the online platfdo present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them liable, in the same way as other economic operators under this Directive. In cases when due to circumstances such as the absence orm itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control. In keeping with this principle, when online platforms do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them liable, in the same way as distributors under this Directive. That means that they would be liable only when they do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, and only where the online platform fails to promptly identify a relevant economic operator based in the Unionnsolvency of an economic operator, the claimant is unable to obtain compensation, the relevant subsequent economic operators should be liable including online marketplaces.

Amendment 128 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market such as online platforms. [Regulation […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)] and [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] regulate, inter alia, the responsibility and accountability of online platforms with regard to illegal content, including products. When online platforms perform the role of manufacturer, importer or distributor in respect of a defective product, they should be liable on the same terms as such economic operators. When online platforms play a mere intermediary role in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are covered by a conditional liability exemption under the Digital Services Act. However, the Digital Services Act establishes that online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders are not exempt from liability under consumer protection law where they present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction in question in a way that would lead an average consumer to believe that the product is provided either by the online platform itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control. In keeping with this principle, when online platforms do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them liable, in the same way as distributors under this Directive. That means that they would be liable only when they do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, and only where the online platform fails to prcomptly ~~identify a relevant economic operator based in the Union~~with the obligations referred to in article 22 (9) of the Regulation (EU) [..../....] on General Product Safety.

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 28

(28) Online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market such as online platforms. [Regulation 2022/2065 […/…] on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)] and [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] regulate, inter alia, the responsibility and accountability of online platforms with regard to illegal content, including products. When online platforms perform the role of manufacturer, importer or distributor in respect of a defective product, they should be liable on the same terms as such economic operators. When online platforms play a mere intermediary role in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are covered by a conditional liability exemption under the Digital Services Act. However, the Digital Services Act establishes that online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders are not exempt from liability under consumer protection law where they present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction in question in a way that would lead an average consumer to believe that the product is provided either by the online platform itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control. In keeping with this principle, when online platforms do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, it should be possible to hold them liable, in the same way as distributors under this Directive. That means that they would be liable only when they do so present the product or otherwise enable the specific transaction, and only where the online platform fails to ~~promptly~~ identify a relevant economic operator based in the Union within one month of receiving the request.

Amendment 130 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(29) In the transition from a linear to a circular economy, products are designed to be more durable, reusable, reparable and upgradable. The Union is also promoting innovative and sustainable ways of production and consumption that prolong the functionality of products and components, such as remanufacturing, refurbishment and repair.47. In addition, products allow for modifications through changes to software, including upgrades. When a product is modified substantially outside the control of the original manufacturer, it is considered to be a new product and it should be possible to hold the person that made the substantial modification liable as a manufacturer of the modified product and subject to the same obligations of a manufacturer, since under relevant Union legislation they are responsible for the product’s compliance with safety requirements. ~~Whether a modification is substantial is determined according to criteria set out in relevant Union and national safety legislation, such as modifications that~~However, these requirements should only apply with respect to the modified part of the product, provided that the modification does not affect the product as a whole. Therefore, the liability of the person that made the substantial modification should be limited to the modified part of the product when the modification does not have an impact on the product as a whole. Whether a modification is substantial is determined according to criteria set out in relevant Union law, including under [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] and Regulation (EU) ..../... (Cyber Resilience Act, and national safety legislation. Modifications are considered substantial, for instance, if they change the original intended functions or affect the product’s compliance with applicable safety requirements. In the interests of a fair apportionment of risks in the circular economy, an economic operator that makes a substantial modification should be exempted from liability if it can prove that the damage is related to a part of the product not affected by the modification. Economic operators that carry out repairs or other operations that do not involve substantial modifications should not be subject to liability under this Directive. _________________ 47 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM/2020/98 final.

Amendment 131 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(29) In the transition from a linear to a circular economy, products are designed to be more durable, reusable, reparable and upgradable. The Union is also promoting innovative and sustainable ways of production and consumption that prolong the functionality of products and components, such as remanufacturing, refurbishment and repair.47. In addition, products allow for modifications through changes to software, including upgrades. When a product is modified substantially outside the control of the original manufacturer, it is considered to be a new product and it should be possible to hold the person that made the substantial modification liable as a manufacturer of the modified product, since under relevant Union legislation they are responsible for the product’s compliance with safety requirements. Whether a modification is substantial is determined according to criteria set out in relevant Union and national safety legislation, such as modifications that change the original intended functions or affect the product’s compliance with applicable safety requirements. In the interests of a fair apportionment of risks in the circular economy, an economic operator that makes a substantial modification should be exempted from liability if it can prove that the damage is related to a part of the product not affected by the modification.It should also be able to pursue remedies against the economic operator that placed the product on the market or put it into service, if it can prove that the part of the product affected by the modification was originally not in conformity with European requirements, and that this non-compliance led partially or totally to the modification. Economic operators that carry out repairs or other operations that do not involve substantial modifications should not be subject to liability under this Directive. _________________ 47 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM/2020/98 final.

Amendment 132 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(29) In the transition from a linear to a circular economy, products are designed to be more durable, reusable, reparable and upgradable. The Union is also promoting innovative and sustainable ways of production and consumption that prolong the functionality of products and components, such as remanufacturing, refurbishment and repair.47. In addition, products allow for modifications through changes to software, including upgrades. When a product is modified substantially outside the control of the original manufacturer, it is considered to be a new product and it should be possible to hold the person that made the substantial modification liable as a manufacturer of the modified product, since under relevant Union legislation they are responsible for the product’s compliance with safety requirements. Whether a modification is substantial is determined according to criteria set out in relevant Union and national safety legislation, such as modifications that change the original intended functions or affect the product’s compliance with applicable safety requirements. In the interests of a fair apportionment of risks in the circular economy, an economic operator that makes a substantial modification should be exempted from liability if it can prove that the damage is related to a part of the product not affected by the modification. Economic operators that carry out repairs or other operations that do not involve substantial modifications should not be subject to liability under this Directive. _________________ 47 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe, COM/2020/98 final.

Amendment 133 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29 a (new)

(29a) In particular the provision of third-party software updates or upgrades after a manufacturer has ceased to provide support for a product, can have very positive effects for the environment by contributing to the reparability and longevity of such products, and should not be disproportionately and negatively affected by this Directive.

Amendment 134 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) In light of the imposition on economic operators of liability irrespective of fault, and with a view to achieving a fair apportionment of risk, the injured person claiming compensation for damage caused by a defective product should bear the burden of proving the damage, the defectiveness of a product and the causal link between the two. Injured persons, are~~, however,~~ often at a significant disadvantage compared to manufacturers in terms of access to, and understanding of, information on how a product was produced and how it operates. This asymmetry of information can undermine the fair apportionment of risk, in particular in cases involving technical or scientific complexity.

Amendment 135 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) In light of the imposition on economic operators of liability irrespective of fault, and with a view to achieving a fair apportionment of risk, the injured person claiming compensation for damage caused by a defective product should bear the burden of proving the damage~~, the defectiveness of a product and the causal link between the two~~. Injured persons, are~~, however,~~ often at a significant disadvantage compared to manufacturers in terms of access to, and understanding of, information on how a product was produced and how it operates. This asymmetry of information can undermine the fair apportionment of risk, in particular in cases involving technical or scientific complexity.

Amendment 136 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) In light of the imposition on economic operators of liability irrespective of fault, and with a view to achieving a fair apportionment of risk, the injured person claiming compensation for damage caused by a defective product should bear the burden of proving the damage, the defectiveness of a product and the causal link between the two. Injured persons, are, however, often at a ~~significant~~ disadvantage compared to manufacturers in terms of access to, and understanding of, information on how a product was produced and how it operates. This asymmetry of information can sometimes undermine the fair apportionment of risk, in particular in cases involving technical or scientific complexity.

Amendment 137 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) It is therefore necessary to facilitate claimants’ access to evidence to be used in legal proceedings, while ensuring that such access is limited to that which is necessary and proportionate, and that confidential information and trade secrets are protected. Such evidence should also include documents that have to be created ex novo by the defendant by compiling or classifying the available evidence. Taking in consideration the complexity of certain types of data, especially those from digital products, the evidence to be disclosed should be delivered in the most accessible manner possible, both in terms of the form of its delivery and its content.

Amendment 138 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) It is therefore necessary to facilitate potential claimants’ access to evidence ~~to be used in legal proceedings~~, while ensuring that such access is limited to that which is necessary and proportionate, and that ~~confidential information and trade secrets are protected~~trade secrets are protected in line with Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Such evidence should also include documents that have to be created ex novo by the defendant by compiling or classifying the available evidence.

Amendment 139 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) In respect of confidential information and trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council48, national courts should be empowered to take all specific measures necessary to ensure their confidentiality ~~of trade secrets~~both during and after the proceedings, while achieving a fair and proportionate balance between the interest of the trade-secret holder to secrecy and the interest of the injured person. This should include at least measures to restrict access to documents containing confidential information and trade secrets or alleged trade secrets and access to hearings to a limited number of people, or allowing access to redacted documents or transcripts of hearings. When deciding on such measures, national courts should take into account: (i) the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial; (ii) the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties; and (iii) any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures. _________________ 48 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) In respect of trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council48, national courts should be empowered to take specific measures to ensure the confidentiality of trade secrets during and after the proceedings, while achieving a fair and proportionate balance between the interest of the trade-secret holder to secrecy and the interest of the injured person. This should include at least measures to restrict access to documents containing trade secrets or alleged trade secrets and access to hearings to a limited number of people, or allowing access to redacted documents or transcripts of hearings. When deciding on such measures, national courts should take into account: (i) the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial; (ii) the legitimate interests, including the amount of damage, of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties; and (iii) any highly potential serious harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures. _________________ 48 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).

Amendment 141 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32

(32) In respect of trade secrets within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council48, national courts should be empowered to take specific measures to ensure the confidentiality of trade secrets during and after the proceedings, while achieving a fair and proportionate balance between the interest of the trade-secret holder to secrecy and the interest of the injured person. This should include at least measures to restrict access to documents containing trade secrets ~~or alleged trade secrets~~ and access to hearings to a limited number of people, or allowing access to redacted documents or transcripts of hearings. When deciding on such measures, national courts should take into account: (i) the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial; (ii) the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties; and (iii) any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures. _________________ 48 Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1).

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 32 a (new)

(32a) The Council Directive 85/374/EEC established that the injured person claiming compensation for damage caused by a defective product should bear the burden of proving the damage, the defectiveness of a product and the causal link between the two. The 2018 Commission Report on the application of the Council Directive 85/374/EEC highlighted that “the most frequent reasons to reject claims relate to the proof of the defect and its link with the damage, which together account for 53% of the cases of rejection”. It is therefore important to reverse the burden of proof. In order to assure that consumers are able to enforce their rights and are not denied access to justice, claimants should only be required to prove the damage suffered. The defectiveness of the product and the causal link between the defectiveness and the damage shall be presumed unless rebutted by the defendant.

Amendment 143 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) It is also necessary to alleviate the claimant’s burden of proof provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. Rebuttable presumptions of fact are a common mechanism for alleviating a claimant’s evidential difficulties, and allow a court to base the existence of defectiveness or causal link on the presence of another fact that has been proven, while preserving the rights of the defendant. In order to provide an incentive to comply with the obligation to disclose information, national courts should presume the defectiveness of a product where a defendant fails to comply with such an obligation. Many legislative and mandatory safety requirements have been adopted in order to protect consumers and the public from the risk of harm. In order to reinforce the close relationship between product safety rules and liability rules, non-compliance with such requirements should also result in a presumption of defectiveness. This includes cases in which a product is not equipped with the means to log information about the operation of the product as required under Union or national law. The same should apply in the case of obvious malfunction, such as a glass bottle that explodes in the course of normal use, since it is unnecessarily burdensome to require a claimant to prove defectiveness when the circumstances are such that its existence is undisputed.deleted

Amendment 144 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

Amendment 145 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

Amendment 146 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

Amendment 147 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 33

(33) It is also necessary to alleviate the claimant’s burden of proof provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. Rebuttable presumptions of fact are a common mechanism for alleviating a claimant’s evidential difficulties, and allow a court to base the existence of defectiveness or causal link on the presence of another fact that has been proven, while preserving the rights of the defendant. In order to provide an incentive to comply with the obligation to disclose information, national courts should presume the defectiveness of a product where a defendant fails to comply with such an obligation. Many legislative and mandatory safety requirements have been adopted in order to protect consumers and the public from the risk of harm, including under [Regulation […/…] on General Product Safety] and Regulation (EU) ..../... (Cyber Resilience Act). In order to reinforce the close relationship between product safety rules and liability rules, non-compliance with such requirements should also result in a presumption of defectiveness. This includes cases in which a product has not affixed a mandatory CE marking or where a product is not equipped with the means to log information about the operation of the product as required under Union or national law. The same should apply in the case of obvious malfunction, such as a glass bottle that explodes in the course of normal use, since it is unnecessarily burdensome to require a claimant to prove defectiveness when the circumstances are such that its existence is undisputed.

Amendment 148 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) National courts should also presume the defectiveness of a product or the causal link between the damage and the defectiveness, or both, where, notwithstanding the defendant’s disclosure of information, it would be excessively difficult for the claimant, in light of the technical or scientific complexity of the case, to prove its defectiveness or the causal link, or both. In such cases, requiring proof would undermine the effectiveness of the right to compensation. Therefore, given that manufacturers have expert knowledge and are better informed than the injured person, it should be for them to rebut the presumption. Technical or scientific complexity should be determined by national courts on a case-by-case basis, taking into account various factors. Those factors should include the complex nature of the product, such as an innovative medical device; the complex nature of the technology used, such as machine learning; the complex nature of the information and data to be analysed by the claimant; and the complex nature of the causal link, such as a link between a pharmaceutical or food product and the onset of a health condition, or a link that, in order to be proven, would require the claimant to explain the inner workings of an AI system. The assessment of excessive difficulties should also be made by national courts on a case-by-case basis. While a claimant should provide arguments to demonstrate excessive difficulties, proof of such difficulties should not be required. For example, in a claim concerning an AI system, the claimant should, for the court to decide that excessive difficulties exist, neither be required to explain the AI system’s specific characteristics nor how these characteristics make it harder to establish the causal link. The defendant should have the possibility to contest the existence of excessive difficulties.deleted

Amendment 149 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

Amendment 150 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) National courts should also presume the defectiveness of a product or the causal link between the damage and the defectiveness, or both, where, notwithstanding the defendant’s disclosure of information, it would be excessively difficult for the claimant, in light of the technical or scientific complexity of the case, to prove its defectiveness or the causal link, or both. ~~In such cases, requiring proof would undermine the effectiveness of the right to compensation. Therefore, g~~Given that manufacturers have expert knowledge and are better informed than the injured person, it should be for them to rebut the presumption. Technical or scientific complexity should be determined by national courts on a case- by-case basis, taking into account various factors. Those factors should include the complex nature of the product, such as an innovative medical device; the complex nature of the technology used, such as machine learning; the complex nature of the information and data to be analysed by the claimant; and the complex nature of the causal link, such as a link between a pharmaceutical or food product and the onset of a health condition, or a link that, in order to be proven, would require the claimant to explain the inner workings of an AI system. The assessment of excessive difficulties should also be made by national courts on a case-by-case basis. While a claimant should provide arguments to demonstrate excessive difficulties, proof of such difficulties should not be required. For example, in a claim concerning an AI system, the claimant should, for the court to decide that excessive difficulties exist, neither be required to explain the AI system’s specific characteristics nor how these characteristics make it harder to establish the causal link. The defendant should have the possibility to contest the existence of excessive difficulties.

Amendment 151 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) National courts should also presume the defectiveness of a product or the causal link between the damage and the defectiveness, or both, where, notwithstanding the defendant’s disclosure of information, it would be excessively difficult for the claimant, in light of the technical or scientific complexity of the case, to prove its defectiveness or the causal link, or both. In such cases, requiring proof would undermine the effectiveness of the right to compensation. Therefore, given that manufacturers have expert knowledge and are better informed than the injured person, it should be for them to rebut the presumption. Technical or scientific complexity should be determined by national courts on a case- by-case basis, taking into account various factors. Those factors should include the complex nature of the product, such as an innovative medical device; the complex nature of the technology used, such as machine learning; the complex nature of the information and data to be analysed by the claimant; and the complex nature of the causal link, such as a link between a pharmaceutical or food product and the onset of a health condition, or a link that, in order to be proven, would require the claimant to explain the inner workings of an AI system. The assessment of excessive difficulties should also be made by national courts on a case-by-case basis. While a claimant should provide arguments to demonstrate excessive difficulties, proof of such difficulties should not be required. For example, in a claim concerning an AI system, the claimant should, for the court to decide that excessive difficulties exist, neither be required to explain the AI system’s specific characteristics nor how these characteristics make it harder to establish the causal link. The defendant should have the possibility to contest the existence of excessive difficulties by demonstrating that the claimant has sufficient evidence to prove the defectiveness of the product or the causal link between its defectiveness and the damage, or both. In such a case, the defectiveness of the product or causal link between its defectiveness and the damage, or both shall not be presumed.

Amendment 152 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) In order to maintain a fair apportionment of risk, and to avoid a reversal of the burden of proof, a claimant should nevertheless, in order to benefit from the presumption, be required to demonstrate, on the basis of sufficiently relevant evidence, that it is likely that, where the claimant’s difficulties relate to proving defectiveness, the product was defective, or that, where the claimant’s difficulties relate to proving the causal link, its defectiveness is a likely cause of the damage.deleted

Amendment 153 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

Amendment 154 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

Amendment 155 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) In order to maintain a fair apportionment of risk, and to avoid a reversal of the burden of proof, a claimant should nevertheless, in order to benefit from the presumption, be required to demonstrate, on the basis of ~~sufficiently relevant~~prima facie evidence, that it is likely that, where the claimant’s difficulties relate to proving defectiveness, the product was defective, or that, where the claimant’s difficulties relate to proving the causal link, its defectiveness is a likely cause of the damage.

Amendment 156 #

Andreas SCHWAB

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) The moment of placing on the market or putting into service is normally the moment at which a product leaves the control of the manufacturer, while for distributors it is the moment when they make the product available on the market. Therefore manufacturers should be exempted from liability where they prove that it is probable that the defectiveness that caused the damage did not exist when they placed the product on the market or put it into service or that it came into being after that moment. However, since digital technologies allow manufacturers to exercise control beyond the moment of placing the product on the market or putting into service, manufacturers should remain liable for defectiveness that comes into being after that moment as a result of software or related services within their control, be it in the form of upgrades or updates or machine-learning algorithms. Such software or related services should be considered within the manufacturer’s control where they are supplied by that manufacturer or where that manufacturer authorises them or otherwise influences their supply by a third party. Where an economic operator has no control over software and software updates to maintain the safety of the product because the only action of the operator is the programming by means of the software to adapt the product to customer preferences, the operator shall not be presumed the manufacturer of the product, and hence, should not be held liable.

Amendment 157 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) The moment of placing on the market or putting into service is normally the moment at which a product leaves the control of the manufacturer, while for distributors it is the moment when they make the product available on the market. Therefore manufacturers should be exempted from liability where they prove that it is probable that the defectiveness that caused the damage did not exist when they placed the product on the market or put it into service or that it came into being after that moment. However, since digital technologies allow manufacturers to exercise control beyond the moment of placing the product on the market or putting into service, manufacturers should remain liable for defectiveness that comes into being after that moment as a result of software or ~~related service~~digital elements within their control, be it in the form of upgrades or updates or machine-learning algorithms. Such software or ~~related service~~digital elements should be considered within the manufacturer’s control where they are supplied by that manufacturer or where that manufacturer authorises them or otherwise influences their supply by a third party.

Amendment 158 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) The moment of placing on the market or putting into service is normally the moment at which a product leaves the control of the manufacturer, while for distributors it is the moment when they make the product available on the market. Therefore manufacturers should be exempted from liability where they prove that ~~it is probable that~~ the defectiveness that caused the damage did not exist when they placed the product on the market or put it into service or that it came into being after that moment. However, since digital technologies allow manufacturers to exercise control beyond the moment of placing the product on the market or putting into service, manufacturers should remain liable for defectiveness that comes into being after that moment as a result of software or ~~related service~~digital elements within their control, be it in the form of upgrades or updates or machine-learning algorithms. Such software or ~~related service~~digital elements should be considered within the manufacturer’s control where they are supplied by that manufacturer or where that manufacturer authorises them or otherwise influences their supply by a third party.

Amendment 159 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 38

(38) The possibility for economic operators to avoid liability by proving that a defect came into being after they placed the product on the market or put it into service should also be restricted when a product’s defectiveness consists in the lack of software updates or upgrades necessary to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities and maintain the product’s safety. Such vulnerabilities can affect the product in such a way that it causes damage within the meaning of this Directive. In recognition of manufacturers’ responsibilities under Union law for the safety of products throughout their lifecycle, such as under Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council49, manufacturers should also be liable for damage caused by their failure to supply software security updates or upgrades that are necessary to address the product’s vulnerabilities in response to evolving cybersecurity risks. Such liability should not apply where the supply or installation of such software is beyond the manufacturer’s control, for example where the owner of the product does not install an update or upgrade supplied for the purpose of ensuring or maintaining the level of safety of the product~~. _________________ 49 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devic~~, insofar this can be reasonably expected by the owner in terms of their technical capabilities, a~~mending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1)~~nd the knowledge required to be able to perform such update or upgrade.

Amendment 160 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

Amendment 161 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

Amendment 162 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) In the interests of a fair apportionment of risks, manufacturers should also be exempted from liability if they prove that the state of scientific and technical knowledge, determined with reference to the most advanced level of objective knowledge accessible and not to the actual knowledge of the manufacturer in question, while the product was within their control was such that the existence of defectiveness could not be discovered. However, this exemption should not apply in case of medicinal products, medical devices and health technologies, since these products entail a risk of rare but serious adverse reactions by their very nature. These reactions could not be foreseen even by the most advanced scientific and technical knowledge, and can only be evidenced after the product has been marketed and used by consumers. In such cases, consumers would need to be protected and they should have the right to request compensation for damages.

Amendment 163 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) In the interests of a fair apportionment of risks, ~~manufacture~~economic operators should also be exempted from liability if they prove that the general state of scientific and technical knowledge, determined with reference to the most advanced level of objective knowledge accessible and not to the actual knowledge of the ~~manufacture~~economic operator in question, while the product was within their control was such that the existence of defectiveness could not be discovered.

Amendment 164 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 40

(40) Situations may arise in which two or more parties are liable for the same damage, in particular where a defective component is integrated into a product that causes damage. In such a case, the injured person should be able to seek compensation both from the manufacturer that integrated the defective component into its product and from the manufacturer of the defective component itself. In order to ensure consumer protection, all parties should be held liable jointly and severally in such situations, with compensation mechanisms allowing the injured person to recover for the total relevant damage. However, the liability of the manufacturer of the defective component should be limited to the chain of commercial transactions. It should therefore cover only situations where the manufacturer has integrated a software into its product, that was placed on the market or put into service.

Amendment 165 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41

(41) Situations may arise in which the acts and omissions of persons other than a potentially liable economic operator contribute, in addition to the defectiveness of the product, to the cause of the damage suffered, such as a third party exploiting a cybersecurity vulnerability of a product. In the interests of consumer protection, where a product is defective, for example due to a vulnerability that makes the product less safe than the public at large is entitled to expect, the liability of the economic operator should not be reduced as a result of such acts or omissions. However, it should be possible to reduce or disallow the economic operator’s liability where injured persons themselves have negligently contributed to the cause of the damage, including when the injured person does not install updates or upgrades provided by the economic operator, that would have mitigated the defect, where this can be reasonably expected from the owner of the product in terms of their technical capabilities and the knowledge required to be able to perform such update or upgrade.

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41

(41) Situations may arise in which the acts and omissions of persons other than a potentially liable economic operator contribute, in addition to the defectiveness of the product, to the cause of the damage suffered, such as a third party exploiting a cybersecurity vulnerability of a product. In the interests of consumer protection, where a product is defective, for example due to a vulnerability that makes the product less safe than the public at large is entitled to expect, the liability of the economic operator should not be reduced ~~as a result of such acts or omissions~~or disallowed as a consequence of events attributable to a third party. However, it should be possible to reduce ~~or disallow~~ the economic operator’s liability where injured persons themselves have negligently contributed to the cause of the damage.

Amendment 167 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 41

(41) Situations may arise in which the acts and omissions of persons other than a potentially liable economic operator contribute, in addition to the defectiveness of the product, to the cause of the damage suffered, such as a third party exploiting a cybersecurity vulnerability of a product. In the interests of consumer protection, where a product is defective, for example due to a vulnerability that makes the product less safe than ~~the public at large is~~consumers are entitled to expect, the liability of the economic operator should not be reduced as a result of such acts or omissions. However, it should be possible to reduce or disallow the economic operator’s liability where injured persons themselves have negligently contributed to the cause of the damage.

Amendment 168 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 42

(42) The objective of consumer protection would be undermined if it were possible to limit or exclude an economic operator’s liability through contractual provisions. Therefore no contractual derogations should be permitted. For the same reason, it should not be possible for provisions of national law to limit or exclude liability, such as by setting financial ceilings on an economic operator’s liability.deleted

Amendment 169 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 42

(42) The objective of consumer protection would be undermined if it were possible to limit or exclude an economic operator’s liability through contractual provisions. Therefore no contractual derogations should be permitted. Free and open source software, where the source code is openly shared and users can freely access, use, modify and redistribute the software or modified versions thereof, can contribute to research and innovation on the market. This software relies on public licenses that guarantee the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software. In order to ensure that such innovation is not hindered, this provision should not impact the use of such licenses. For the same reason, it should not be possible for provisions of national law to limit or exclude liability, such as by setting financial ceilings on an economic operator’s liability.

Amendment 170 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43

(43) Given that products age over time, and that higher safety standards are developed as the state of science and technology progresses, it would not be reasonable to make manufacturers liable for an unlimited period of time for the defectiveness of their products. In addition, liability rules should take the expected lifespan of a product into account in order to reduce premature disposal of viable goods purchased by consumers and to encourage consumers to use their goods longer. Therefore, the liability should be subject to a reasonable length of time, that is 130 years or the expected lifespan of a product, whichever is longer following placing on the market, without prejudice to claims pending in legal proceedings. In order to avoid unreasonably denying the possibility of compensation, the limitation period should be 1530 years in cases where the symptoms of a personal injury are, according to medical evidence, slow to emerge.

Amendment 171 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43

(43) Given that products age over time, and that higher safety standards are developed as the state of science and technology progresses, it would not be reasonable to make manufacturers liable for an unlimited period of time for the defectiveness of their products. Therefore, the liability should be subject to a reasonable length of time, that is 130 years following placing on the market, without prejudice to claims pending in legal proceedings. In order to avoid unreasonably denying the possibility of compensation, the limitation period should be 15 years in cases where the symptoms of a personal injury are, according to medical evidence, slow to emerge.

Amendment 172 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 43

(43) Given that products age over time, and that higher safety standards are developed as the state of science and technology progresses, it would not be reasonable to make manufacturers liable for an unlimited period of time for the defectiveness of their products. Therefore, the liability should be subject to a reasonable length of time, that is 10 years following placing on the market, without prejudice to claims pending in legal proceedings. In order to avoid unreasonably denying the possibility of compensation, the limitation period should be 1520 years in cases where the symptoms of a personal injury are, according to medical evidence, slow to emerge.

Amendment 173 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44

(44) Since substantially modified products ~~are essentially new products,~~may be in some cases considered new products, in such cases the limitation period should restart after a product has been substantially modified, for example as a result of remanufacturing, that modify a product in such a way that its compliance with the applicable safety requirements may be affected. The product should be considered substantially modified in case it is labelled as such.

Amendment 174 #

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45

(45) In order to facilitate harmonised interpretation of this Directive by national courts, Member States should be required to publish relevant court judgments on product liability. Furthermore, the Commission should set up and maintain a publicly available database containing such judgments as well as judgments delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to proceedings launched pursuant to this Directive.

Amendment 175 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45

(45) In order to facilitate harmonised interpretation of this Directive by national courts, Member States should be required to ~~publish relevant court judgments on product liability~~inform the public, by means easily accessible to the public, of relevant court judgments on product liability. To this end, the Commission should make a common platform available to Member States and maintain it.

Amendment 176 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – title

SObjective and subject matter

Amendment 177 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph -1 (new)

-1 The objective of this Directive is to ensure a high level of consumer protection, as well as improving the functioning of the internal market.

Amendment 178 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Directive lays down common rules on the liability of economic operators for damage suffered by natural persons caused by defective products. This Directive shall also cover the liability of economic operators that are small and micro enterprises for damage suffered by legal persons if this liability was not specified in a separated contract between the parties.

Amendment 179 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Directive lays down common rules on the liability of economic operators for damage suffered by natural persons caused by defective products. It complements Union and Member State law on extra- contractual liability, providing for compensation and a high level of protection for the victims of defective products.

Amendment 180 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Directive lays down common rules on the liability of economic operators for damage suffered by natural persons caused by defective products and ensures that such persons are entitled to compensation.

Amendment 181 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

The aim of this Directive is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection and a level playing field for all businesses, and avoiding high costs and risks for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups. This Directive seeks to combat legislative fragmentation and to remove divergences between the legal systems of Member States related to the liability of economic operators for damage suffered by natural persons caused by defective products.

Amendment 182 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive shall apply to products as defined in Article 4 placed on the market or put into service after [OP, please insert the date: 12 months after entry into force].

Amendment 183 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive shall apply to products placed on the market or put into service after [OP, please insert the date: 124 months after entry into force].

Amendment 184 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Svenja HAHN

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. This Directive shall not apply to free and open-source software.

Amendment 185 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. This directive shall not apply to freeware and open-source software, unless: (a) the developer or a third-party has explicitly agreed to accept liability, for instance, as part of the provision of technical support services, either with a user, or with a manufacturer who wishes to use the software as a component in their own products. (b) the software is provided in the course of commercial activity, either by: (i) charging a price for a product; (ii) providing a software platform reliant on other services which the manufacturer monetises (iii) using personal data generated by the software for reasons other than exclusively for improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of the software.

Amendment 186 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. This Directive shall not apply to free and open-source software offered by the manufacturer under a free and open- source licence, where the consumer does not pay a price and personal data provided by the consumer are exclusively processed by the manufacturer for the purpose of improving the security, compatibility or interoperability of that specific software.

Amendment 187 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. This Directive shall not apply to damage arising from standalone software and free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity.

Amendment 188 #

Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. This Directive shall not apply to the software developed and deployed by microenterprises as defined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2013/34/EU for the period of 5 years after its placement on the market. In such cases, the software deployer shall informed consumers about this exemption.

Amendment 189 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) national rules concerning the right of contribution or recourse between two or more economic operators that are jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 11 or in a case where the damage is caused both by a defective product and by an act or omission of a third party as referred to in Article 12;deleted

Amendment 190 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b

Amendment 191 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)

(ba) protection of confidential information and trade secrets;

Amendment 192 #

Marion WALSMANN

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) any rights which an injured person may have under national rules concerning contractual liability or concerning non- contractual liability on grounds other than the defectiveness of a product as provided for in this Directive, including national rules implementing Union Law, such as [AI Liability Directive];

Amendment 193 #

Svenja HAHN

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 – point c

Amendment 194 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

Member States shall not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more, or less, stringent provisions to achieve a different level of consumer protection, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive. To the extent that Member States lay down rules in their national law which concern matters other than those regulated by this Directive, they should apply in so far as they do not prejudice the aims of this Directive.

Amendment 195 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

Member States ~~shall not~~may maintain or introduce, in their national law, ~~provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more, or less,~~more stringent provisions to achieve a ~~different~~higher level of consumer protection~~, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive~~.

Amendment 196 #

Amendment 197 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Where another Union act governing specific product contains rules on the liability for damage caused by defective products, only the rules of that Union act shall apply to those specific products, unless provided otherwise in that act. In that case, this Directive shall not apply.

Amendment 198 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ‘product’ means all movables, even if integrated into another movable or into an immovable. ‘Product’ includes electricity, digital manufacturing files and ~~software~~any software embedded into the product, open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity shall not be considered as product;

Amendment 199 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ‘product’ means all movables, even if integrated into another movable or into an immovable. ‘Product’ includes electricity, digital manufacturing files and software; For the purpose of this directive, “software” excludes free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity;

Amendment 200 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) ‘product’ means all movables, even if integrated into or inter-connected with another movable or into an immovable. ‘Product’ includes electricity, digital manufacturing files ~~and softwar~~, raw materials and software subject to the conditions laid down in this Directive;

Amendment 201 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1a) ‘artificial intelligence system’ means an artificial intelligence system as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EU).../... of the European Parliament and of the Council to lay down a uniform legal framework in particular for the development, marketing and use of artificial intelligence in conformity with EU values (Artificial Intelligence Act);

Amendment 202 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)

(1a) ‘Software’ means the part of an electronic information system which consists of computer code which is a part of other product, excluding open-source software, application programming interfaces and software development kits;

Amendment 203 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

(2) ‘digital manufacturing file’ means a digital version or a digital template of a movable, which contains the functional information necessary to produce a tangible item by enabling the automated control of machinery or tools ;

Amendment 204 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

(2a) ‘software’ means software that is placed on the market as a standalone product, as a component of another product or provided as a service;

Amendment 205 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘component’ means any item, whether tangible or intangible including embedded software or software intended as a safety component of a product, 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;

Amendment 206 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘component’ means any item, whether tangible or intangible, including raw materials, 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;

Amendment 207 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘component’ means any item, whether tangible or intangible, or any related service, that is integrated into, or inter-connected with, another product by the manufacturer of that product or by a third party within that manufacturer’s control;

Amendment 208 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘component’ means any item, whether tangible or intangible, or any related ~~service~~digital element, that is integrated into, or inter-connected with, a product by the manufacturer of that product or within that manufacturer’s control;

Amendment 209 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘component’ means any item, whether tangible or intangible, or any ~~related service~~digital element, that is integrated into, or inter-connected with, a product by the manufacturer of that product or within that manufacturer’s control;

Amendment 210 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)

(3a) ‘safety component of a product’ means a component of a product which fulfils a safety function for that product or the failure or malfunctioning of which endangers the health and safety of persons or property;

Amendment 211 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) ‘related service’ means a digital service that is integrated into, or inter- connected with, a product in such a way that its absence would prevent the product from performing one or more of its functions when it is necessary for a tangible product to operate or when it presents a safety relevance;

Amendment 212 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) ‘related ~~service~~digital element’ means a digital service or digital content, as defined in Articles 2 (1) and (2) of Directive (EU) 2019/770 that is integrated into, or inter- connected with, a product in such a way that its absence would prevent the product from performing one or more of its functions;

Amendment 213 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) ‘related service’ means a digital (4) ‘digital element’ means a digital service that is integrated into, or inter- service or digital content, as defined in connected with, a product in such a way Article 2 (1) and (2) of Directive (EU) that its absence would prevent the product 2019/770, that is integrated into, or inter- from performing one or more of its connected with, a product in such a way functions; that its absence would prevent the product from performing one or more of its functions;

Amendment 214 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Amendment 215 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

(5) ‘manufacturer’s control’ means that the manufacturer of a product ~~authorises~~performs or, with respect to the actions of a third party explicitly authorises or consents to a) the integration, inter-connection or supply by a third party of a component including software updates or upgrades, or b) the modification of the product, including substantial modifications;

Amendment 216 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5

(5) ‘manufacturer’s control’ means that (5) ‘manufacturer’s control’ means that the manufacturer of a product authorises a) the manufacturer of a product authorises a) the integration, inter-connection or supply the integration, inter-connection or supply by a third party of a component including by a third party of a component including software updates or upgrades, or b) the software updates or upgrades, or b) the modification of the product; modification of the product, including where the product is fed with new data or through the product’s ability to continue to learn after deployment;

Amendment 217 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5

(5) ‘manufacturer’s control’ means that the manufacturer of a product ~~authorise~~instructs a) the integration~~, inter-connection or~~ of a component into the product, the inter-connection of a component with the product with the product or the supply by a third party of a component including software updates or upgrades, or b) the modification of the product;

Amendment 218 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5

(5) ‘manufacturer’s control’ means that the manufacturer of a product explicitly authorises a) the integration, inter- connection or supply by a third party of a component including the specific software updates or upgrades, or b) the modification of the product;

Amendment 219 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

(6) ‘damage’ means material losses resulting from: (a) death or personal injury, including medically recognised harm to psychological health; (b) harm to, or destruction of, any property, except: (i) the defective product itself; (ii) a product damaged by a defective component of that product; (iii) property used exclusively for professional purposes; (c) loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes;deleted

Amendment 220 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6

Amendment 221 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – introductory part

(6) ‘damage’ means both material and non-material losses resulting from:

Amendment 222 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – introductory part

(6) ‘damage’ means ~~material~~ losses resulting from:

Amendment 223 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a

(a) death or personal injury, ~~including medically recognised harm to psychological health;~~

Amendment 224 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a

(a) death or personal injury~~, including medically recognised harm to psychological health~~;

Amendment 225 #

Edina TÓTH

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a

(a) death or personal injury~~, including medically recognised harm to psychological health~~;

Amendment 226 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a

(a) death or personal injury, ~~including~~with the exception of medically recognised harm to psychological health;

Amendment 227 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b – introductory part

(b) ~~harm~~damage to, or destruction of, any property with a lower threshold of 500 EUR, except:

Amendment 228 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b – point ii

~~(ii) a product damaged by a defective component of that product;~~deleted

Amendment 229 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point b – point iii

(iii) property used exclusively for professional purposes, unless among small and micro enterprises, when covered by business to business contractual agreements;

Amendment 230 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

~~(c) loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes;~~deleted

Amendment 231 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

(c) loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes; unless for small and micro enterprises that are not covered by business to business contractual agreements;

Amendment 232 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c

(c) loss, theft or corruption of data, including leakage of data, that is not used exclusively for professional purposes;

Amendment 233 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c a (new)

(ca) This definition shall be without prejudice to national provisions relating to non-material damage.

Amendment 234 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c a (new)

(ca) economic loss;

Amendment 235 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point c b (new)

(cb) non-material damages;

Amendment 236 #

(6a) ‘damage’ includes: (a) material damage resulting from: (i) death or personal injury, including medically recognised harm to psychological health, (ii) harm to, or destruction of, any property, except: - the defective product itself; - a product damaged by a defective component of that product; - property used exclusively for professional purposes; (iii) loss, corruption, theft or unauthorised copying of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes; (iv) pure economic loss (b) non-material damages

Amendment 237 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

(6a) This Directive shall be without prejudice to national provisions relating to non-material damage.

Amendment 238 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 7 a (new)

(7a) 'medically recognised harm to psychological health' means adverse psychological effects that are supported by expert evidence and amount to a diagnosed illness according to WHO criteria and that cannot be resolved without medical treatment, excluding stress and anxiety;

Amendment 239 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 9

(9) ‘making available on the market’ means any supply of a product for distribution, consumption or use on the Union market in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge. The collaborative development of free and open-source software or making them available on open repositories shall not constitute placing on the market;

Amendment 240 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 10

(10) ‘putting into service’ means the first use of a product in the Union in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge, in circumstances in which the product has not been placed on the market prior to its first use. The collaborative development of free and open-source software or making them available on open repositories shall not constitute a putting into service;

Amendment 241 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 10

(10) ‘putting into service’ means the first use by the end user of a product in the Union in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge, in circumstances in which the product has not been placed on the market prior to its first use;

Amendment 242 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 10 a (new)

(10a) ‘substantial modification’ means a modification, or a series of modifications, to a product after it has been placed on the market or put into service: (a) that is considered substantial under relevant Union or national rules on product safety; or (b) where relevant Union or national rules lay down no threshold on what should be considered a substantial modification, that: (i) changes the product’s original performance, purpose or type, without this being foreseen in the manufacturer’s initial risk assessment; and (ii) changes the nature of the hazard, creates a new hazard or increases the level of risk.

Amendment 243 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 11

(11) ‘manufacturer’ means any natural or legal person who develops, manufactures or produces a product or has a product designed or manufactured, or who markets that product under its name or trademark thereby presenting itself as a manufacturer, or who develops, manufactures or produces a product for its own use;

Amendment 244 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 11

(11) ‘manufacturer’ means any natural or legal person who develops, deploys, manufactures or produces a product or has a product designed or manufactured, orand who markets that product under its name or trademark or who develops, manufactures or produces a product for its own use;

Amendment 245 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 11

(11) ‘manufacturer’ means any natural or legal person who deveplopys, manufactures or produces a product or has a product designed or manufactured, or who markets that product under its name or trademark or who deveplopys, manufactures or produces a product for its own use;

Amendment 246 #

(11a) ‘deployer’ means any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using a product under its authority except where the product is used in the course of a personal non- professional activity;

Amendment 247 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)

(11a) “software deployer” – is a natural or legal person taking a decision to deploy the software with a concrete functionality and characteristics and puts it into use;

Amendment 248 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 12

(12) ‘authorised representative’ means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has agre~~ceiv~~ed a written mandate ~~from~~with a manufacturer to act on its behalf in relation to specified tasks;

Amendment 249 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 12

12. ‘authorised representative’ means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received a written mandate from a manufacturer to act on ~~his or her behalf in relation to specified tasks~~its behalf for the purpose of this Directive;

Amendment 250 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 15

(15) ‘distributor’ means any natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer ~~or the importer~~, the importer or the authorised representative, who makes a product available on the market;

Amendment 251 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 16

(16) ‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer of a product or component, the provider of a related service, the authorised representative, the importer, the fulfilment service provider ~~or the distributor~~, the distributor or any other natural or legal person who is subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products, making them available on the market, putting them into service or maintaining them in accordance with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation;

Amendment 252 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 16

(16) ‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer of a product or component, the provider of a ~~related service~~digital element, the authorised representative, the importer, the fulfilment service provider or the distributor;

Amendment 253 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17

(17) ‘online platform’ means online platform as defined in Article 23, point (hi), of Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)54. _________________ 54 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote. 2022/2065

Amendment 254 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

(17a) 'Authorised representative' means any natural or legal person established within the Union who has received and accepted a written mandate from a manufacturer, to act on the manufacturer’s behalf in relation to specified tasks with regard to the latter’s obligations under this directive;

Amendment 255 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Svenja HAHN

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

(17a) ‘trade secret’ means trade secret as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure;

Amendment 256 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

(17a) ‘freeware’ means proprietary software that is provided at no cost to the user, but cannot be distributed, studied, changed, improved, integrated into other products or provided as a service without the consent of the author.

Amendment 257 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 a (new)

(17a) ‘potential claimant’ means a natural or legal person who is considering but has not yet brought a claim for damages;

Amendment 258 #

Karen MELCHIOR, Sandro GOZI, Svenja HAHN

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 b (new)

(17b) ‘substantial modification’ means a modification of a product, by physical or digital means, shall be deemed to be substantial where it has an impact on the safety of the product and the following criteria are met: (a) the modification changes the product in a manner which was not foreseen in the initial risk assessment of the product; (b) the nature of the hazard has changed, a new hazard has been created or the level of risk has increased because of the modification; and (c) the modifications have not been made by the consumers themselves or on their behalf for their own use.

Amendment 259 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 b (new)

(17b) ‘open-source software’ means software distributed under a licence which allows users to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve it freely, as well as to integrate it as a component in other products, provide it as a service, or provide commercial support for it.

Amendment 260 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 b (new)

(17b) ‘obvious malfunction’ means a self-evident, indisputable and easily recognisable failure to operate or function in the normal or correct manner :

Amendment 261 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 c (new)

(17c) ‘gross mistake’ means an action taken by the manufacturer in the course of the development of a software product that does not use the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would, in particular through failing to apply commonly accepted best practices in the development process.

Amendment 262 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 17 c (new)

(17c) ‘obvious malfunction’ means the undisputable failure of a product to operate normally during its designated use.

Amendment 263 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that any natural person or legal person as specified in Article 1, who suffers damage caused by a defective product (‘the injured person’) is entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions set out in this Directive.

Amendment 264 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. Member States shall ensure that ~~claims for compensation~~the person claiming compensation for damages caused by a defective product (‘the claimant’) pursuant to paragraph 1 may also be ~~brought by~~:

Amendment 265 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. If no economic operator or online platform is liable for a damage caused by a defective product pursuant to Article 7 or capable of ensuring full compensation for such a damage, the injured person shall still be able to seek compensation through ad-hoc national funds. Member States shall ensure that their national rules provide for the existence of a scheme on compensation that guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to injured persons who suffer damages caused by defective products.

Amendment 266 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article5a Damage 1. The right to compensation under Article 5 shall apply in respect of the following types of damage, intended as material losses resulting from: (a) death or personal injury, including medically recognised harm to psychological health; (b) harm to, or destruction of, any property, except: (i) the defective product itself; (ii) a product damaged by a defective component of that product that is integrated into, or inter- connected with, a product by the manufacturer of that product or within that manufacturer’s control; (iii) property used exclusively for professional purposes; (c) loss or corruption of data that is not used exclusively for professional purposes; (d) pure economic loss; (e) non-material harm, according to national rules.

Amendment 267 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)

Article5a Guidance Member States shall ensure that the competent national consumer protection authorities provide information and tailored guidance to consumers in order to effectively exercise their right to compensation in accordance with Article 5 of this Directive. National consumer protection agencies and bodies shall regularly exchange relevant information they became aware of and closely cooperate with the market surveillance authorities.

Amendment 268 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. A product shall be considered 1. defective when it is not in compliance with standards of safety, consumer protection and data protection or does not provide the safety or functioning which the public at large is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including the following:

Amendment 269 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. A product shall be considered defective when it does not ~~provide~~ comply withe s~~afety which the public at large is~~tandards or legislation, match its description or function as consumers are entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including the following:

Amendment 270 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. A product shall be considered defective when it is not in compliance with Union or National product safety law or does not provide the safety which the public at large is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including in particular the following:

Amendment 271 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the ~~presentation~~characteristics of the product, including its design , technical features, composition, packaging, and the instructions for assembly, installation, use and maintenance;

Amendment 272 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) the presentation of the product, including the instructions for installation, use and maintenance if they are related to the damage caused;

Amendment 273 #

(a) the presentation of the product, including the labelling, its instructions for installation, use and maintenance;

Amendment 274 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) the presentation of the product, including the labelling, any warnings and other information regarding the product;

Amendment 275 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the reasonably foreseeable use and, where applicable, misuse of the product, taking into account the expected life-span of a product ;

Amendment 276 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the reasonably foreseeable use and misuse of the product , including related cybersecurity risks;

Amendment 277 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the ~~reasonably foreseeable use and misuse of~~intended use the product;

Amendment 278 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the reasonably foreseeable use ~~and misuse~~ of the product;

Amendment 279 #

(b) the reasonably foreseeable use ~~and misuse~~ of the product;

Amendment 280 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the effect on the product of any ability to continue to learn after ~~deployment~~it is placed on the market or put into service;

Amendment 281 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the effect on the product of any ability to continue to learn after ~~deployment~~being placed on the market or put into service;

Amendment 282 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the effect on the product of any ability to continue to learn after ~~deployment~~its placement on the market or service;

Amendment 283 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) the effect on the product of other products that can reasonably be expected to be used together with the product;~~deleted

Amendment 284 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the reasonably foreseeable effect on the product of other products that can ~~reasonably~~ be expected to be used together with the product or to be interconnected with the product;

Amendment 285 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the effect on the product of other products that can reasonably be expected to be used together with the product including by interconnection;

Amendment 286 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point d

(d) the effect on the product of ~~other~~interconnected products that can reasonably be expected to be used together with the product;

Amendment 287 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

~~(f) product safety requirements, including safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements;~~deleted

Amendment 288 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) ~~product safety requirements~~the compliance with relevant product safety requirements set out in Union or national law, including safety- relevant cybersecurity requirements, where such a non-compliance enhanced the risk of causing harm of the relevant type suffered by the injured person and that risk has materialised;

Amendment 289 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) mandatory product safety requirements, including safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements laid down in Union law or national law that are intended to protect against the risk of the damage that has occurred;

Amendment 290 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) product safety requirements, under Union and National law, including safety- relevant cybersecurity requirements;

Amendment 291 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point f

(f) product safety requirements under Union and national law, including safety- relevant cybersecurity requirements;

Amendment 292 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point g

(g) any ~~intervention~~relevant recall of the product decided by a regulatory authority or by an economic operator referred to in Article 7 relating to product safety;

Amendment 293 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h

~~(h) the specific expectations of the end-users for whom the product is intend~~deleted.

Amendment 294 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) the specific reasonable expectations of the end- users for whom the product is intended and, where appropriate, the categories of end users at risk when using the product, in particular vulnerable persons such as children, older persons and persons with disabilities.

Amendment 295 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) the specific expectations of the end- users for whom the product is intended., including particular vulnerable end-users such as children, older people and persons with disabilities;

Amendment 296 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h

(h) the specific group of end-users, including vulnerable end-users and the expectations of the end- users for whom the product is intended.

Amendment 297 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) well-founded concerns that products from the same product series are defective, or that a component within the product is defective, for instance when there is evidence that a large number of consumers are experiencing the same issue with products from the same product series, or when concerns are presented by a consumer organisation.

Amendment 298 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) serious adverse effects on consumer health that are indicated in the leaflet without consumers being aware that they will be affected by these serious adverse effects;

Amendment 299 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) justified concerns which for instance are presented by a consumer organisation that products from the same product series are defective.

Amendment 300 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point h a (new)

(ha) claims that products from the same product series have been shown to be defective by consumers or consumers’ organisations.

Amendment 301 #

1a. A product shall be considered defective when it does not comply with mandatory safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements under EU or national law.

Amendment 302 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Standalone software products that neither control objects in the physical world nor make decisions or provide advice impacting the environment, citizens health, safety, fundamental rights, economic standing or access to public services, shall not be considered defective if the following requirements are met: (a) the manufacturer of the product has responded to reports of bugs from users within a timeframe proportional to the severity of the bug; and (b) the manufacturer of the product has taken measures to address security flaws in their product or its components within a time-frame proportional to the severity of the security flaw; and (c) the manufacturer of the product has integrated features into the software in order to prevent or reduce the impact of data loss in the event of a malfunction; and (d) damage caused was not the result of a gross mistake on the part of the manufacturer;

Amendment 303 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. A product or related service shall not be considered defective if: (a) an integrated software contains bugs, glitches or flaws of a type that the public at large should expect; or (b) software updates or upgrades are issued for the product or related service.

Amendment 304 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Member States shall ensure that, where a defective component has caused the product to be defective, the manufacturer of a defective component can also be held liable ~~for the same damage.~~ in the chain of commercial transactions for the same damage, unless the defect is attributable to the design of the product in which the component has been integrated or to the instructions given by the manufacturer of that product to the manufacturer of the component.

Amendment 305 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Member States shall ensure that, where a defective component has caused the product to be defective, the manufacturer of a defective component can also be held liable and accountable for the same damage.

Amendment 306 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union or cannot be identified, the importer of the defective product ~~and the authorised representative of the manufacturer can~~, the authorised representative of the manufacturer and the online marketplace where the product was sold can be held jointly and severally liable for any damage caused by that product. With regard to online marketplaces, this provision should also apply if the third- party seller is established outside the EU or cannot be identified. The marketplace must be able to identify and provide the means of contacting the manufacturer within a reasonable time, or else it may be held liable for damage caused by that product.

Amendment 307 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union or cannot be identified, the importer of the defective product ~~and~~, the authorised representative of the manufacturer ~~can be held~~, the fulfilment service provider, the provider of an online platform and the distributor of the product can be held jointly and severally liable for damage caused by that product.

Amendment 308 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Without prejudice to the liability of the manufacturer, Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product or component is established outside the Union, the importer of the defective product or component and the authorised representative of the manufacturer can be held liable for damage caused by that product or component.

Amendment 309 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union, or where it is unable to provide compensation due to absence or insolvency, the importer of the defective product and the authorised representative of the manufacturer can be held liable for damage caused by that product.

Amendment 310 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union, the importer of the defective product and , where applicable, the authorised representative of the manufacturer can be held liable for damage caused by that product.

Amendment 311 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2

(2) Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union, the importer of the defective product and the authorised representative of the manufacturer ~~can b~~are held liable for damage caused by that product.

Amendment 312 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The manufacturer cannot be identified if the claimant requests an economic operator listed in paragraph 2 to identify the manufacturer and the requested economic operator fails to provide the claimant with all the information necessary to identify and contact the manufacturer, within 1 month of receiving the request.

Amendment 313 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

Amendment 314 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

Amendment 315 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

Amendment 316 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union and neither of the economic operators referred to in paragraph 2 is established in the Union, or where the manufacturer and the economic operators referred to in paragraphs 2 are unable to provide compensation due to absence or insolvency, the fulfilment service provider can be held liable for damage caused by the defective product.

Amendment 317 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

(3) Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union and neither of the economic operators referred to in paragraph 2 is established in the Union, the fulfilment service provider can be held liable and accountable for damage caused by the defective product.

Amendment 318 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union and neither of the economic operators referred to in paragraph 2 is established in the Union, the fulfilment service provider can be held liable for damage caused by the defective product or component.

Amendment 319 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3

(3) Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union and neither of the economic operators referred to in paragraph 2 is established in the Union, the fulfilment service provider ~~can be~~is held liable for damage caused by the defective product.

Amendment 320 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Member States shall ensure that, where the manufacturer of the defective product is established outside the Union and neither of the economic operators referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 can be identified or are not established in the Union, or where the manufacturer and the economic operators referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are unable to provide compensation due to absence or insolvency, any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer, authorised representative or fulfilment service provider, can be held liable for damage caused by a product.

Amendment 321 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. Any natural or legal person that modifies a product that has already been placed on the market or put into service shall be considered a manufacturer of the product for the purposes of paragraph 1, where the modification is considered substantial under relevant Union or national rules on product safety and is undertaken outside the original manufacturer’s control or not carried out on behalf of the manufacturer and where the product is labelled as substantially modified by any person that modifies a product.

Amendment 322 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. Any natural or legal person that substantially modifies a product ~~that has already been placed~~outside the manufacturer’s control and thereafter makes it available on the market or put into service shall be considered a manufacturer of the product for the purposes of paragraph 1~~, where the modification is considered substantial under relevant Union or national rules on product safety and is undertaken outside the original manufacturer’s control~~.

Amendment 323 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. Any natural or legal person that modifies a product that has already been placed on the market or put into service shall be considered a manufacturer of the product for the purposes of paragraph 1, where the modification is considered substantial ~~under relevant Union or national rules on product safety~~ and is undertaken outside the original manufacturer’s control.

Amendment 324 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5

5. Member States shall ensure that where a manufacturer under paragraph 1 cannot be identified or, where the manufacturer is established outside the Union, an economic operator under paragraph 2 or 3 cannot be identified, each distributor of the product can be held liable where: (a) the claimant requests that distributor to identify the economic operator or the person who supplied the distributor with the product; and (b) the distributor fails to identify the economic operator or the person who supplied the distributor with the product within 1 month of receiving the request.deleted

Amendment 325 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5

Amendment 326 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

(5) Member States shall ensure that where a manufacturer under paragraph 1 cannot be identified or, where the manufacturer is established outside the Union, an economic operator under paragraph 2 or 3 cannot be identified, each distributor of the product ~~can be~~is held liable where:

Amendment 327 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Amendment 328 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – point a

(a) the ~~claimant~~injured person requests that distributor to identify the economic operator or the person who supplied the distributor with the product; and

Amendment 329 #

René REPASI, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Brando BENIFEI, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. Paragraph 5 shall also apply to any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor , provided that the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55 are fulfilled. _________________ 55 + OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote.deleted

Amendment 330 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. Paragraph 5 shall also apply to any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor , provided that the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55are fulfilled. _________________ 55 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote.deleted

Amendment 331 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, René REPASI, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Brando BENIFEI

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. Paragraph 5 shall also apply to any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor , provided that the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55are fulfilled. _________________ 55 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote.deleted

Amendment 332 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. ~~Paragraph 5 shall also apply to~~Member States shall ensure that where a manufacturer under paragraph 1 cannot be identified, or where the manufacturer is established outside the Union, or where an economic operator under paragraphs 2 or 3 cannot be identified, any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders can~~d tha~~ be held liable where: (a) it is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor ~~, provided that~~; (b) it has failed to comply with Article 22(9) of Regulation (EU) [.../...] of the European Parliament and of the Council on General Product Safety; and (c) the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)~~…/…~~ 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55 are fulfilled. _________________ 55 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote.

Amendment 333 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. Paragraph 5 shall also apply to any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor , provided that the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55are fulfilled. _________________ 55 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote 2022/2065 are fulfilled.

Amendment 334 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 6

6. Paragraph 5 shall also apply to any fulfilment service provider and to any provider of an online platform that allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders and that is not a manufacturer, importer or distributor , provided that the conditions of Article 6(3) set out in Regulation (EU)…/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act)55are fulfilled. _________________ 55 +OP: Please insert in the text the number of the Directive contained in document PE-CONS 30/22 (2020/0361(COD)) and insert the number, date, title and OJ reference of that Directive in the footnote 2022/2065 are fulfilled and it has failed to comply with Article 20(5) of Regulation (EU) …… the General Product Safety Regulation.

Amendment 335 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – title

DRight of information and disclosure of evidence

Amendment 336 #

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Member States shall ensure that a potential claimant who suffers or allegedly suffers harm caused by a defective product is able to request the relevant economic operator to disclose relevant information that is at its disposal in a timely, clear and intelligible manner before considering introducing judicial claim for compensation. As regards products containing AI components, such information shall consist a minima in the information being made accessible to consumers when the product is placed on the market, which shall include, where appropriate and relevant, which functions are AI enabled, if there is human oversight, and who is responsible for the decision-making process, as well as the existing rights and processes that, according to Union and national law, allow natural persons or their representatives to object against the application of such systems to them and to seek judicial redress against decisions taken by or harm caused by AI systems, including their right to seek an explanation.

Amendment 337 #