Product Liability & Safety 2025 Comparisons

Product safety laws in the Netherlands are mainly based on European legislation. Separate regimes exist for medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and food. In addition, harmonised legislation applies to sector-specific products such as cosmetics, toys, radio equipment, and motor vehicles.

For consumer products that fall outside the scope of the sector-specific regime, the (new) European General Product Safety Regulation 2023/988 (GPSR) applies. The GPSR replaces the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC and Directive 87/357/EEC regarding products resembling foodstuffs. It is binding in all its parts and is directly applicable across the European Economic Area, including the Netherlands.

The GPSR aims to ensure an even higher level of consumer protection and improve the functioning of the internal European market regarding products intended for consumers. From 13 December 2024, all non-food consumer products put on the market must comply with the GPSR. Sector-specific directives and regulations with the same objective remain in place. The GPSR will only apply to those aspects and risks or categories of product risks not covered by those sector-specific regulations.

European product legislation is implemented within the revised Dutch Commodities Act (Warenwet), the Decree on the Implementation of the GPSR and the Accreditation Regulation of 2 December 2024  (Warenwetbesluit uitvoering verordening algemene productveiligheid en verordening inzake accreditatie) and sector-specific Product Safety decrees, such as those applicable for cosmetics products, toys and machinery, etc. For food, the Dutch Commodities Act applies, as well as specific Commodities Act decrees. 

Since 2021, Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 (Verordening Markttoezicht) has applied for non-food consumer products subject to the “Union harmonisation legislation” shown in Annex I of the Regulation, in so far as there are no specific provisions with the same objective in the Union harmonisation legislation that more specifically regulate particular aspects of market surveillance and enforcement.

There are several Regulatory Authorities in the Netherlands that are designated to supervise product safety, as follows.

NVWA

The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit, or NVWA) is the main designated responsible authority for consumer products (including food).

RDI

The Dutch Authority for Digital Infrastructure (Rijksinspectie Digitale Infrastructuur, or RDI) is the supervising Authority for products related to telecom, radio equipment, and 5G. It is responsible for obtaining and allocating frequency space and monitoring its use. The agency’s work covers the entire field of wireless and wired communication.

ILT

The Dutch Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport, or ILT) is responsible for transport, infrastructure, environment and living. Its task is to ensure that businesses, organisations and government agencies comply with laws and regulations regarding sustainable living, environment, physical safety, and the housing association sector.

Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie

The Netherlands Labour Authority oversees machinery and tools at work to ensure compliance with laws and regulations with respect to working conditions.

IGJ

The Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (Inspectie Gezondheidszorg en Jeugd, or IGJ) handles safety on medical devices and medication.

ACM

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is responsible for ensuring fair sales practices for consumers and preventing misleading marketing activities. Additionally, ACM oversees a significant portion of the Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065. They are also the designated authority for online marketplace providers regarding the enforcement of Article 22, Sections 7 to 9 and Section 11 of the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR). These provisions establish regulations that ensure compliance with Articles 16, 23, and 31 of the Digital Services Act (EU) 2022/2065.

Scope of Power

The scope of power of the above-mentioned Authorities is similar. They are authorised, among other things, to request information, carry out inspections and investigations, impose fines, and order corrective measures, etc. 

Economic operators are obliged to place only safe products on the market and to monitor those products.

Where a manufacturer considers or has reason to believe, on the basis of the information in that manufacturer’s possession, that a product which it placed on the market is a dangerous product, the manufacturer shall immediately take appropriate corrective measures and inform consumers. The corrective measures depend on the product, the nature and severity of the risk in question and (potential) damages, and the group of people for whom the product is intended (children or adults, for example). In case of a serious risk, a product recall might be required.

Manufacturers shall ensure that other economic operators, responsible persons, and providers of online marketplaces in the supply chain concerned are kept informed in a timely manner of any safety issue they have identified.

Importers ensure that corrective measures are taken, and where such measures have not been taken, the importer shall immediately take them. He also needs to ensure that consumers are immediately informed. The distributor also has to ensure corrective measures are taken but is not obliged to take corrective measures themselves where the manufacturer or the importer has not taken such measures. The distributor doesn’t have to inform consumers.

Providers of online marketplaces shall, among other things, ensure that affected consumers who bought the product through their interfaces are timely notified of a product recall of which they have actual knowledge or where certain information has to be brought to the attention of consumers to ensure the safe use of a product and publish information on product safety recalls on their online interfaces.

Notification

Where a manufacturer considers or has reason to believe, on the basis of the information in that manufacturer’s possession, that a product which it placed on the market is a dangerous product, the manufacturer shall immediately inform, through the Safety Business Gateway, the market surveillance authorities of the member states in which the product has been made available on the market thereof, giving details, in particular, of the risk to the health and safety of consumers and of any corrective measure already taken, and, if available, of the quantity, by member state, of products still circulating on the market. The same applies to the importer. The distributor shall ensure notification through the Safety Business Gateway.

Providers of online marketplaces shall immediately inform, through the Safety Business Gateway, the market surveillance authorities of the member states in which the relevant product has been made available on the market about dangerous products that were offered on their online interfaces, of which they have actual knowledge, by providing the appropriate details available to them of the risk to the health and safety of consumers, of the quantity by member state of products still circulating on the market, if available, and of any corrective measure that, to their knowledge, has already been taken.

Manufacturers (or the responsible person) must report accidents involving their product through the Safety Business Gateway to the authority of the member state where the accident has occurred. The threshold for notification is occurrences associated with the use of a product that resulted in an individual’s death or in serious adverse effects on that individual’s health and safety, permanent or temporary, including injuries, other damage to the body, illness and chronic health effects. The notification shall include the type and identification number of the product as well as the circumstances of the accident if known. The manufacturer (or the responsible person) shall notify, upon request, the competent authorities of any other relevant information.

Importers and distributors will be required to inform the manufacturer of accidents they become aware of involving products supplied by them without undue delay.

Providers of online marketplaces are required to notify without undue delay through the Safety Business Gateway of any accident of which they have been informed, resulting in a serious risk or actual damage to the health or safety of a consumer, caused by a product made available on their online marketplace and inform the manufacturer thereof. In addition, they need to inform the relevant traders and economic operators without delay about the information they have received regarding accidents or safety issues, where they have knowledge that those traders offered the product in question through their interfaces.

Time Limit

The term “immediately” is understood to mean acting without undue delay. According to the Guidelines of the Commission Decision of 14 December 2004 (2004/905/EC) – which has since been repealed by the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/1761 of 21 June 2023 – it refers to taking action as soon as relevant information becomes available. In all cases, this action must occur within ten days of the manufacturer or distributor obtaining reportable information indicating a dangerous product’s presence, even if investigations are still ongoing. When there is a serious risk, companies are required to inform the authorities immediately and in no case later than three days after they have obtained notifiable information. In an emergency situation, such as when immediate action is taken by a company, the company should inform the authorities immediately and by the most expedient means. 

Notification Process

The GPSR makes it compulsory for economic operators and providers of online marketplaces to use the Safety Business Gateway to fulfil the notification obligations.

Formal Requirements

The notification to the authorities via the Safety Business Gateway should include details of the notifier, the product involved, the safety risk at hand and conclusions of the risk assessment, the jurisdictions where the product was put on the market, the period in which it was sold, details of the supply chain (including the numbers sold) and the corrective measures taken to prevent or limit the risk.

In order to inform consumers about a product safety recall, economic operators have to prepare a recall notice containing all the mandatory elements listed in the GPSR. A recommended template is provided (Safety Gate: the EU rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products). Amongst others, the “Product safety recall” notice needs to include a clear description of:

• the hazard associated with the recalled product, avoiding any elements that may decrease consumers’ perception of risk, such as by using terms and expressions such as “voluntary”, “precautionary”, “discretionary”, “in rare situations” or “in specific situations” or by indicating that there have been no reported accidents; and
• the remedies available to consumers, including the choice between at least two of the following remedies: repair, replacement or refund.

The authorities have recourse to various interventions in case of non-compliance. These depend on the type of violation (serious, medium or light), the consequences of the violation, the conduct of the offender and all other facts and circumstances of the situation. In general, the more serious the violation in terms of product safety, or in case of repeat violations, the heavier the penalty. Interventions, which are non-exhaustively summarised in the Annex of the General Intervention Policy 2024 of the NVWA (that applies as of 13 January 2024), include, amongst others:

• an official warning;
• corrective measures, such as a product recall;
• an administrative fine or criminal penalty;
• closure or shutdown of activities;
• suspension of accreditation; and
• criminal prosecution.

For non- or late notification of a product safety issue, an administrative fine of EUR795 applies, or EUR1,590 for companies with more than 50 employees. These amounts also apply to putting unsafe products on the market. They may vary slightly, depending on product type. One can also be criminally prosecuted for non- or late notification, leading to six months of imprisonment, community service, or a criminal penalty of EUR25,750 (category 4).

Failure to cooperate with the authorities is regarded as a serious offence. It can lead to three months of imprisonment or a criminal fine of EUR5,150 (category 2).

Failure to comply with an administrative order to withdraw or recall products is regarded as a crime (misdrijf). It can lead to 2 years imprisonment, community service or a criminal penalty of EUR25,750 (category 4).

In exceptional circumstances involving intent or gross negligence, large companies can be subject to an administrative fine related to annual turnover. As of 1 January 2024, this fine is capped at EUR1,030,000 per violation (category 6). According to the NVWA’s intervention policy, in principle, a maximum of five violations will be fined per inspection (per location). Consequently, in principle a maximum fine of EUR5,150,000 million can be imposed. 

In the Fipronil case, where millions of eggs were unlawfully infected with Fipronil, the Court of Overijssel sentenced two board members to one year of imprisonment. These board members neglected food safety, resulting in health risks, environmental damage, and significant economic loss (District Court Overijssel 12 April 2021, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2021:1508).

A well-known Dutch retail company selling private label power banks with a risk of explosion was imposed by the NVWA with a fine of EUR871,590 in total for:

• (i) unlawfully selling dangerous powerbanks;
• (ii) not taking appropriate measures to prevent the risk, such as carrying out research on the cause of potential explosion; and
• (iii) non-compliance with the duty to immediately notify the NVWA after becoming aware of the risk.

For each of these non-compliances, a standard fine of EUR1,590 was applied at the time, though for breaches (i) and (iii), the NVWA had applied the administrative fine related to the annual turnover, so 2x EUR435,000, stating gross negligence. According to the Rotterdam District Court, a fine of EUR870,000 was rightfully imposed for breach (i) and (iii). The Court did follow the retailer’s objection against a fine of EUR1,590 for the alleged breach (ii). Due to the exceeding of a reasonable period, the total fine was reduced to EUR795,000 (Rotterdam District Court 18 July 2024, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:6624)

In the Netherlands, the causes of action for product liability are based on the Dutch Civil Code (DCC).

Strict Liability

Article 6:185 of the DCC includes the lex specialis. Based on this article, a manufacturer can be held liable for damages resulting from a defective product. This strict liability applies only to cases involving death, personal injury or property damage caused by the defective product to another item intended for private use or consumption. The injured party must have primarily obtained the product for their own private use or consumption. For this kind of property damage, a threshold of EUR500 applies.

Articles 6:185 to 6:193 of the DCC align with European Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC, incorporating its provisions into Dutch law.

The Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC will be replaced by the new Product Liability Directive 2024/2853 (“new PLD”). As the new PLD will be applicable as of 9 December 2026, Articles 6:185 DCC et seq will be amended accordingly. A bill for implementation has been proposed. The current Directive will remain applicable for products put on the market before 9 December 2026.

Fault-Based Liability (Tort)

Article 6:162 of the DCC is the lex generalis. It provides a general legal basis for holding a manufacturer liable for damages caused by a defective product. Fault on the part of the defendant needs to be established. This article imposes no limitations on the type of damages that can be pursued and is, therefore, often utilised by companies. Consumers may also resort to these legal grounds when the long or short-stop term has expired, which applies to the strict liability regime.

Contractual Liability

Article 6:74 of the DCC provides the legal foundation for handling contract breaches concerning defective or non-conform products. Strict product liability toward the consumer, as outlined in Article 6:185 of the DCC, cannot be contractually waived; thus, any attempt in a contract with a consumer to exclude strict product liability would be legally invalid.

Consumers who are directly affected by the product defect and who claim to have suffered damages due to the defective product can bring a claim for product liability on the basis of Article 6:185 and Article 6:162 of the DCC. Representative bodies, such as foundations and associations, can bring a collective product liability claim on behalf of a group of consumers. Companies can rely on contractual and fault-based liability (Article 6:162 of the DCC).

Two important limitation periods apply for a product liability claim against the manufacturer based on Article 6:185 of the DCC, as follows:

• short-stop term: this is three years from the day on which the injured person became aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the damage, the defect and the identity of the manufacturer; this short term can easily be interrupted by sending a letter to the defendant in which all rights are reserved; and
• long-stop term: this is ten years from the date on which the manufacturer put the product that caused the damage into circulation; unless the injured person initiates legal proceedings within these ten years, the right to claim damages expires. For long-tail damages, a long-stop period of 25 years is introduced in the new PLD.

A different limitation period applies for a fault-based liability claim based on tort: a five-year term applies from the day on which the injured person became aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the damage and the manufacturer’s identity. This term can also easily be interrupted by sending a letter to the defendant reserving all rights. No long-stop term applies for a claim based on tort.

European Legislation

For product liability, international jurisdiction is, in principle, governed by European Council Regulation EU No 1215/2012, commonly referred to as the Brussels I Recast. One can be sued in court in another member state if the place where a harmful event occurred or could occur falls within the competence of that court. The place where the product in question was manufactured and the place where the initial damage occurred are referred to as Handlungsort and the Erfolgsort, respectively. Depending on the specifics of the case, there could be some special jurisdiction rules (eg, for liability insurers).

Lugano Convention 88/592/EEC governs the jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, specifically between EU member states and Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, established in The Hague in 2005 (2014/887/EU), applies to exclusive choice of court agreements in commercial transactions involving parties from EU member states and other nations, such as the United Kingdom.

DCCP

Where no international treaty is applicable, the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) determines international jurisdiction. According to Article 2 of the DCCP, the main rule is that the Dutch court has jurisdiction if the defendant is a domiciled or habitual resident in the Netherlands. The court may also have jurisdiction if jurisdiction has been agreed upon in a contract or if the contract that is the subject of the proceedings had to be performed in the Netherlands (Article 8 of the DCCP). However, if it is truly impossible for the claimant to start legal proceedings outside the Netherlands, the Dutch court may also assume jurisdiction, according to the forum of necessity doctrine (Article 9 of the DCCP).

Due to the complexity of the above-mentioned legislation, careful legal analysis must be carried out to ensure that the claim is brought before the competent court.

Neither the Brussels I Recast Regulation nor the DCCP provides a specific basis of jurisdiction or application of the (special) jurisdictional rules with regard to collective actions. In a collective action brought by the Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation against car manufacturers not based in the Netherlands, the central question was whether the Dutch court had jurisdiction. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepted competency regarding aggrieved persons who had bought or leased their vehicle in the Netherlands on the basis of Article 8 sub 1 Brussels I Recast (regarding the Italian car manufacturer) and Article 7 sub 1 DCCP (regarding the US manufacturer). Competency of the Dutch Court was not accepted regarding aggrieved persons who had bought or leased their vehicle outside the Netherlands, somewhere in the EU (Court of Appeal Amsterdam 13 August 2024, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:2238).

There are no specific pre-action procedures and/or requirements for filing a lawsuit for product liability claims in the Netherlands. The only exception is for collective action (Article 3:305a of the DCC). Failure to comply with these pre-action requirements can make the claim inadmissible. For more detailed information, please see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims.

As of 1 January 2025, procedural law in the Netherlands has been updated to simplify evidential law. This modernisation applies broadly, including to product liability cases. Articles 205 and 206 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) introduce the option for seizure to preserve evidence. Additionally, if requested by an interested party, the interim relief judge may authorise the preparation of an official report to document facts that the bailiff has personally observed in a location not accessible to the public.

Apart from these procedural changes, one needs to take into account the statutory retention period for technical files, etc. Furthermore, it is advisable to preserve a number of products and documents relating to product compliance.

The new Dutch procedural legislation has revised the previous disclosure regime outlined in Article 843a of the DCCP. This updated regime is now reflected in Articles 194-195a and 204 of the DCCP. The primary principle of the new regime is that a request for the disclosure of documents, whether made during or before trial, will be granted unless an exception applies. Additionally, disclosure can be requested from another party, even in the absence of a legal relationship. The criterion for making a disclosure request is having sufficient interest. Some Dutch authors believe this change has lowered the threshold for requests that previously required a legitimate interest. 

New Product Liability Directive

The new Product Liability Directive 2024/2853 introduces a fresh disclosure regime. According to the new PLD, claimants only need to present facts and evidence to support the claim’s plausibility for compensation to obtain disclosure of relevant evidence. The defectiveness of a product is presumed in case the defendant fails to disclose relevant evidence. Defendants can also request disclosure of relevant evidence and need to present facts and evidence sufficient to demonstrate the defendant’s need for evidence to counter a claim.

When determining whether the disclosure is necessary and proportionate,  national courts will consider the legitimate interests of all parties concerned, including third parties, in particular concerning protecting confidential information and trade secrets.

The parties are allowed to present expert evidence to support their arguments and positions. In addition, the court can appoint an expert, either upon request of one of the parties or upon its own authority. The court-appointed expert is regarded as fully independent. The expert is not permitted to have a role in the decision-making process alongside the judge.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. The injured party needs to prove the damage, the defect and the causal link between the damage suffered and the defect (Article 6:188 of the DCC). The same applies to a tort claim, based on Article 6:162 of the DCC, although proof of an attributable unlawful act is also required.

The new PLD introduces the presumption of defect and/or causal link under certain conditions.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

In cases of incidental product failure, defectiveness can be presumed under this doctrine.

Batch Liability

In the Boston Scientific case of 5 March 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:148) involving pacemakers and defibrillators implanted in patients, the European Court of Justice introduced the principle of “batch liability”: “Where it is found that such products belonging to the same group, or forming part of the same production series, have a potential defect, products within that batch may be classified as defective without needing to prove the defect in the particular product in question”. In the same judgment, the Court ruled that compensation of damages includes the costs relating to replacing the defective product, provided that such replacement is required to overcome the defect in the product in question.

Batch liability is adopted in the new PLD.

Civil Court

Product liability claims in the Netherlands are normally brought before one of the eleven District Courts. The cantonal court is competent for claims with a maximum quantum of EUR25,000. The relative jurisdiction of a specific court depends on factors such as where the harmful event occurred or where the defendant is domiciled.

Judges

Cases are decided by judges. The Dutch legal system is not familiar with juries.

Parties are allowed to appeal within three months at the Court of Appeal. One can also appeal at the Supreme Court, for which a term of three months also applies. Shorter terms apply for interlocutory proceedings.

According to the current Article 6:185 of the DCC, the following statutory defences regarding strict liability are available to the manufacturer:

• they did not put the product on the market;
• with regard to the circumstances, it is likely that the defect that caused the damage did not exist at the time the product was put on the market or that the defect occurred afterwards;
• the product was neither manufactured by the manufacturer for sale or any form of distribution for economic purposes nor manufactured or distributed by them in the course of their professional practice or business;
• the defect was due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by the public authorities;
• the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was put on the market was not such that the existence of a defect could be discovered (“state-of-the-art defence”); and
• in the case of a component that the defect was attributable to, the design of the product in which the component was fitted or to the instructions given by the producer of the parts.

According to Article 6:186 of the DCC, a product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, particularly in terms of:

• its presentation;
• the use that could reasonably be expected to be made of the product; and
• the time when the product was put on the market.

These circumstances are not exhaustive. Non-compliance with product safety requirements will be considered when assessing a defect. Conversely, full compliance with safety requirements does not guarantee that a product is without defects.

Under the new PLD, the product’s defectiveness shall be presumed in case the claimant demonstrates that the product does not comply with mandatory product safety requirements laid down in Union or national law, which are intended to protect against the risk of the damage suffered by the injured person.

Court Fees

In the event of litigation, court fees are due by both parties. A fixed schedule applies, and the amount depends on the quantum of the claim. The minimum amount for companies is EUR714, and the maximum is EUR10,188.

Recoverable Costs

These include fixed court fees, expert fees, costs for hearing witnesses, bailiff fees and disbursements, and fixed expenses for having the judgment executed, which are recoverable costs for the successful party. Attorneys’ fees will only be compensated according to a fixed liquidation schedule. In reality, these fees are much lower than the actual attorneys’ fees incurred.

“Deelgeschil”

A product defect can cause personal injury. In personal injury cases, one could start a deelgeschil, in which the court is asked to rule a judgment on a particular case issue, such as liability, causation or quantum. A condition for the admissibility of a deelgeschil is that the judgment assists parties in reaching an out-of-court settlement. Contrary to normal litigation, in a deelgeschil, the liable party will be ordered to pay the actual attorneys’ fees for the personal injury claimant.

No Cure, No Pay

According to the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers (de Gedragsregels voor advocaten), lawyers are prohibited from making “no cure, no pay” arrangements. An exception is made for personal injury claims (based on a pilot, which is extended until 1 January 2026), but this is strictly regulated. Certain conditions need to be met, and the Dean of the Bar where the lawyer practices needs to be notified. Fixed or capped fees are permitted.

Third-party Funding

Third-party funding for court litigation is allowed. No statutory legislation specifically regulates third-party funding in the Netherlands. The European Collective Redress Directive 2020/1828 includes provisions regulating third-party litigation funding for collective actions on behalf of consumers. These are incorporated in the WAMCA (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).

Previously, the so-called Claim Code 2019 served as a code of conduct for claim vehicles with principles governing the relationship between a claim vehicle and a third-party funder.

On 13 September 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (2020/2130(INL)), including a proposal for a new directive on the regulation of third-party litigation funding (2023/C 125/01). This proposal is still under consideration. Meanwhile, a study on Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the EU was carried out. Reference is made to the Final report EC Mapping TRLP in the EU dated 21 March 2025. The study aimed to collect and analyse information on legal frameworks and practices of third-party litigation funding in the EU Member States and selected third countries (CA, CH, UK, US). The Commission’s services will use the study’s results to prepare future policy decisions concerning third-party litigation funding, particularly in the follow-up to the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 September 2022 on responsible funding of litigation.

Legal Aid

Individuals with insufficient financial means to secure legal representation might be eligible for legal aid under the conditions outlined in the Legal Aid Act.

Two causes of collective action are available under Dutch law, as follows.

WCAM Procedure

The Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Damage (WCAM), as laid down in Article 7:907 of the DCC, provides that a collective settlement must be approved as binding by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal before it can be enforced.

WAMCA

On 1 January 2020, the Dutch Collective Redress Act (WAMCA) came into force. A claim vehicle can initiate a collective damages action on an opt-out basis. The WAMCA is characterised by the following:

• it only applies to actions that relate to events that occurred on or after 15 November 2016;
• strict admissibility requirements apply for the claim vehicle;
• the so-called “scope rule” requires a claim to have a sufficiently close connection to the Dutch jurisdiction before it can be brought under the WAMCA;
• collective claims must be registered in the Central Register, which is publicly accessible;
• if there are several claim vehicles for the same event, the Court will appoint an Exclusive Representative from among the claimants who shall act for the interests of all parties in the litigation;
• the Court classifies the individual claimants into groups for the purpose of damage awards, which is known as damage scheduling; and
• a final judgment on a collective action binds all people residing in the Netherlands who have not opted out and all non-Dutch residents who opted in.

Product Liability

Currently, there are two WAMCA product liability class actions pending in the Netherlands.

District Court of Amsterdam 14 February 2024 and 1 May 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:745 and 2479) – Allergan/breast implants

On 12 December 2022, on behalf of thousands of women, the Foundation Bureau Clara Wichmann issued a WAMCA class action against Allergan, an American medical device manufacturer of breast implants. The women claim the breast implants to be defective, as a result of which they have suffered damages. On 14 February 2024, the Court of Amsterdam ruled that:

• Bureau Clara Wichmann is admissible in its claim as a representative of the women who were implanted with the device in the Netherlands; and
• the WAMCA only applies to these women who have a device implanted that was put on the market after 15 November 2016.

As a consequence, the case can proceed on its merits. On 1 May 2024, the Court provided the instructions for the process of opting in and opting out. Moreover, parties were given a deadline of 14 August 2024 to reach an out-of-court settlement. Until now, this has been without result. A hearing is now planned for 23 September 2025.

District Court of Midden-Nederland 8 January 2025 and 26 March 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:10 and 1209) – Bayer/Essure

On 3 April 2023, a WAMCA class action was issued by the Foundation Essure Claims (and others) against medical device manufacturer Bayer. The case concerns permanently implanted birth control devices for women (female sterilisation). On behalf of these women, who had such a device implanted in the Netherlands, the Foundation is holding Bayer liable for general and special damages due to these allegedly defective products to which numerous women attribute various complaints. Preliminary issues were dealt with on 8 January 2025 in the interim judgment of the Court Midden-Nederland, Utrecht. The Court ruled that:

• it was (internationally) competent to rule on the collective claim against Bayer;
• the WAMCA is (temporally) applicable;
• the Foundation was admissible in its claim; and
• Dutch law applies.

In its judgment of 26 March 2025, the Court laid down the (practical) instructions for the process of opting in and opting out, which were largely in line with what the parties had agreed upon.

Please refer to 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims, in addition to the following.

District Court Amsterdam 23 January 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:634 – Deelgeschil Defective Scooter

In this deelgeschil, the court accepted the importer’s product liability for a defective scooter. As a consequence, the manufacturer was ordered to pay the claimant’s deelgeschil costs, estimated at EUR18,467.80 (including VAT).

Court of Appeal The Hague 14 January 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:12 –  BMW on Fire

BMW’s product liability was established in the first instance. In the appeal, parties debated the quantum of damages. The consumer claimed EUR14,920.24, of which EUR9,512 was for general damages. General damages were awarded EUR1,000. The total damages awarded by the Court of Appeal were EUR1,628.68.

District Court Noord-Holland, location Alkmaar 31 October 2024,  ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2024:11205 – Deelgeschil Defective Bike

In this deelgeschil, the court accepted the manufacturer’s product liability for a defective bike. As a consequence, the manufacturer was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the deelgeschil, estimated at EUR8,222.

District Court Midden-Nederland, location Almere 21 February 2024, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:4591 – Breast Implants

The court did not accept the manufacturer’s product liability for alleged defective (silicone) breast implants. The court did not see any reason for reversing the burden of proof regarding causality. The claimant also did not meet the threshold for rewarding an anxiety claim, with reference to Supreme Court 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278. 

District Court of Rotterdam 27 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:8987 – PFAS

In this judgement, the District Court of Rotterdam held manufacturer Chemours (a Dutch company previously known as DuPont) liable towards four Dutch Municipalities for environmental damage caused by PFAS from 1984 to 1998. This judgement could open the door for product liability claims from local residents against Chemours. In September 2023, around 3,600 people collectively filed a criminal complaint against Chemours, and, in the meantime, the Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation against Chemours and its directors.

District Court of Rotterdam 28 June 2023, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:5214 – Biomet Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Following the extensive report of the court-appointed experts, the court was of the opinion that the metal-on-metal hip implants could not be regarded as defective in the relevant (2004–2009) period when they were considered to be “state of the art”. Liability was rejected.

Supreme Court 16 July 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1172 – Long-stop Term Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant

Metal-on-metal hip implants consist of various components, such as the ball, the stem, and the cup. These components can be put on the market at different dates. During surgery, they are put together to replace the patient’s original hip. When does the long-stop term of 10 years start for a hip implant? According to the Supreme Court, every component can be regarded as a separate product. The start of the long-stop term depends on when the particular component was put on the market.

Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden 15 June 2021, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:5818, Confirmed by the Supreme Court 11 November 2022, ECLI:NL:HR:2022:1602 – Seroxat

As a minor in 2001, the claimant was prescribed the antidepressant Seroxat. Fifteen years later, they held the manufacturer liable for failing to properly warn them about the suicide risk linked to the drug. At the time, they used the medication for five months and attempted suicide several times. Unlike the Midden-Nederland Court, the Court of Appeal rejected liability. According to the Court of Appeal, the manufacturer did comply with its duty of care in properly warning users about this risk. Moreover, in terms of a “conditio sine qua non”, a causal link between the damages and the use of the product or the alleged failure to warn was not established. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment.

New Product Safety Regulation 2023/988

The new GPSR has replaced both the European Product Safety Directive and the Food Imitating Product Directive. This increases the protection of EU consumers against dangerous non-food products sold both online and offline. Businesses and national market surveillance authorities have been applying the Regulation since 13 December 2024.

Compared with the previous Product Safety Directive, the main changes under the Regulation are as follows:

• a product includes (integrated and stand-alone) software (and artificial intelligence);
• for all non-food consumer products, a responsible person needs to be established in the EU and can be the fulfilment service provider;
• specific requirements for providers of online marketplaces are introduced;
• manufacturers are required to immediately report accidents with their products to the authorities in the event of severe injury or fatalities;
• specific rules  apply on how to handle product safety recalls, and a recommended recall notice template containing all the mandatory elements listed in the GPSR is provided on Safety Business Gateway; and
• a Consumer Safety Network will be established, and a modernised Safety Gate will be the platform where all the information comes together.

Revision of the EU Product Liability Directive

On 28 September 2022, the European Commission issued a proposal for a new Product Liability Directive. In December 2023, the EU reached a provisional agreement on the text of the new Directive. The new Product Liability Directive entered into force on 8 December 2024. EU countries will have until 9 December 2026 to transpose this Directive into national law. The PLD applies to products placed on the market as of 9 December 2026. The 1985 directive remains applicable for products placed on the market before that date.

The main changes under the new PLD, compared to the current Directive, are as follows:

• the definition of a product is expanded to include software;
• damages include medically recognised damage to psychological health and the destruction or irreversible corruption of data;
• the threshold for property damage  is deleted;
• any person that substantially modifies the product outside the manufacturer’s control and makes it available on the market thereafter will be considered a manufacturer;
• a disclosure obligation is introduced;
• the burden of proof is eased for consumers; 
• the whole supply chain is exposed to strict liability, and
• in an EU database, national supreme and appeal court judgments of product liability cases will be accessible.

The new PLD will substantially improve consumers’ positions, and this is especially true due to the European Collective Redress Directive 2020/1828, which became effective on 25 June 2023. As a result, consumers are more likely to issue a (collective) product liability claim and have an improved chance of success.

Due to the popularity of the WAMCA (with it’s opt-out system), the Netherlands is already familiar with class actions and will likely remain a leading forum for them. The class-action framework is well established, the court is geared up, extensive expertise is available, and the duration of the litigation process is attractive compared to other European countries.

Please refer to 3.1. Trends in Product Liability and Product Safety Policy.