The main laws and regulations of the legal regime around product safety in Greece are as follows:

• Ministerial Decision Z3/2810/14 of December 2004, which implemented EU Directive 2001/95/EC on General Product Safety (GPSD); and
• Law 2251/1994 on the Protection of Consumers (Law 2251; as amended repeatedly and in force currently following Law 5019/2023), which, inter alia, implemented EU Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products (as amended by EU Directive 99/34/EC; the PLD).

The above legal framework is supplemented by and interacts with:

• provisions of the legislation on various specific product categories covering safety issues; and
• Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 “on market surveillance and compliance of products” in force as of 16 July 2021 (excluding provisions on the new Union Product Compliance Network, in force as of 1 January 2021).

GPSD will be repealed by General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 as from 13 December 2024.

The General Secretariat of Commerce via the General Directorate of Market and Consumer Protection and the Directorate of Consumer Protection (collectively hereinbelow the “General Secretariat”) of the Ministry of Development (“the Ministry”) is the central regulatory authority on producer compliance with product safety rules.

Various other competent authorities exist for sectoral products, such as:

• the General Secretariat of Industry of the Ministry for industrial products, such as, among others, plastics and toys;
• the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for medicines, cosmetics and chemicals; and
• the Hellenic Food Authority (EFET), for food products.

The regulators have broad authorities and powers for exercising their duties, and may request that the manufacturer, distributor or any supplier of an unsafe product implement specific preventive or corrective actions, defining the time frame within which these actions should be accomplished. If the obliged party fails to satisfy these requests, the regulators and/or another competent authority may impose sanctions.

In exercising their duties, product safety regulators may cooperate: (a) with other non-product safety regulators in the general frame of cooperation between Greek public administrative bodies; and (b) with similar international regulators within the framework of existing international legislation – eg, the EU Rapid Alert System for unsafe consumer products (Rapid Exchange of Information System, or RAPEX; see 1.4 Obligations to Notify Regulatory Authorities).

There are no specific provisions regarding the criteria according to which corrective action has to be taken. The general framework is that the manufacturer or distributor of a defective product must take any appropriate measures to eliminate possible hazards affecting the product’s use as soon as a defect comes to their attention. These measures may vary, and can include warning notifications, instructions to consumers, invitations for servicing or updating the product at issue so that it becomes safe, or recall notifications.

A product recall is an action taken where no other measure would eliminate the danger, and may be initiated voluntarily by the manufacturer or the distributor or mandatorily following an order by the competent authority.

The European Commission provides a guide entitled “Recall process from A-Z: Guidance for economic operators and market surveillance authorities” dated 22 July 2021 which contains useful information on the legal framework around and process to be followed by economic operators and market surveillance authorities in determining when corrective action – specifically a recall – is required, and how best to handle it.

If manufacturers or distributors become aware that any of their products present a risk to consumers, they must immediately notify the General Secretariat and any other competent regulatory authority, depending on the type of product involved. The criteria determining when a matter requires notification derive from the rule that the safety profile of a product dictates any notification needed.

Article 7, paragraph 3 of Law 2251 (see 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework) lists the criteria to be monitored from the point of view of risks to consumers’ safety and health protection, as follows:

• the characteristics of the product, including its composition, packaging, instructions for assembly and, where applicable, for installation and maintenance;
• the effect on other products, where it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used with other products;
• the presentation of the product, the labelling, any warnings and instructions for its use and disposal and any other indication or information regarding the product; and
• the categories of consumers at risk when using the product, children and the elderly, in particular.

The manufacturers may be informed about the risks of a product by any appropriate means; they may discover that the product is not safe following their own inspections and tests or based on initiatives by consumers, insurance companies, distributors, or government bodies. In all cases, the manufacturers must notify the regulatory authority as soon as a risk has been established.

The notified regulatory authority may request additional information, and the submission of relative documents or measures to be taken by the producer or distributor.

EC Decision 2004/905/EC of 14 December 2004 sets out the guidelines for notification by manufacturers and distributors of dangerous consumer products to the competent authorities of member states (the “Guidelines”) based on paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the GPSD.

Section 3 of the Annex to the Guidelines sets out the notification criteria, which are as follows:

• the product is understood to be intended for, or likely to be used by, consumers (Article 2(a) of the GPSD);
• Article 5 of the GPSD applies, unless there are specific provisions established by other EU legislation;
• the product is on the market;
• the professional has evidence that the product is dangerous according to the GPSD, or does not satisfy the safety requirements of the relevant community sectoral legislation that applies to it; and
• the risks are such that the product may not remain on the market.

The notification is made in the form required by the regulatory authority, and it must include information that identifies the product, fully describes the defect or the risk involved in using the product, locates the product in the market and describes the action taken or to be taken by the manufacturer or distributor.

The European Commission’s “Business Gateway to report your dangerous products to the Member State authorities” (formerly known as the GPSD Business Application) allows the manufacturers or distributors of the notified product or their authorised representatives to submit notifications under the GPSD. It also allows Greek and other EU competent national authorities to use information provided to submit a RAPEX notification if all criteria for this are met.

RAPEX is the EU Rapid Alert System for unsafe consumer products (with the exception of food, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, covered by other mechanisms), established under Article 12 of the GPSD. RAPEX allows for rapid exchange of information on measures such as repatriation or product recalls, whether carried out by national authorities or through voluntary action of manufacturers and distributors (please click on this link for further information and also visit this website). The EU Commission issued guidelines for managing RAPEX via Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/417, amended by Implementing Decision (EU) 2023/975 of 15 May 2023.

With respect to timing, notification must be made immediately. Section 4.3 of the Annex to the Guidelines provides that notification must be made without delay and specifies the deadline for making notifications in terms of days. Accordingly, in cases of serious risk, companies are required to inform the regulatory authorities without delay, no later than three days after obtaining information and, in any other instance, within 10 days. There are only minimal differences in the preconditions and time frames for notification for various specific product categories.

The penalties for breach of the key obligations for product safety and related obligations were updated and expanded upon in 2023 (Articles 13(a)-3(i) of Law 2251, as revised by Law 5019/2023; see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).

As an overview, subject to the provisions of the Criminal Code and the “Rules Regulating the Market of Products and the Provision of Services” (Law 4177/2013, in force), the following sanctions may be imposed by a decision of the competent organ of the Ministry (see 1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety), acting either ex officio or after a filed complaint:

• a recommendation for compliance within a specified deadline and an order to cease the infringement and refrain from it in the future; or
• a fine of between EUR5,000 and EUR1.5 million. The fine may reach a maximum of EUR3 million if, within the last five years, more than one decision imposing fines has been issued against the same infringer for breaches of Law 2251 (or of other laws referring to Law 2251 for the imposition of a fine).

For the imposition of the above sanctions, certain criteria are indicatively listed, including any sanctions imposed previously on the same infringer for the same breach in other EU member states regarding transboundary cases, if relevant information is available under Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 “on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws” as in force. Also, when the Greek regulatory authorities are to impose penalties under Article 21 of the same Regulation for “widespread infringements” or “widespread infringements with a Union dimension”, the maximum fine may be up to 4% of the infringer’s annual turnover in the relevant EU member state and, if there is no information on such turnover, it could reach EUR5 million.

Moreover, a special set of sanctions may be imposed on infringers that do not provide requested documents, or that do not respond to consumers’ complaints per the stipulated proceedings.

An additional sanction imposable in certain conditions and providing for the temporary closure of the infringer’s business for a period of three months to one year was abolished in 2022.

Further, appropriate injunctive measures, as a case may be, may be taken by the competent organs of the Ministry.

A summary of any decision imposing a fine that exceeds EUR50,000 (or not, if it is imposed for a repeated infringement) is publicised by any appropriate means and uploaded to the Ministry website within five working days of its issue.

Lastly, a general five-year prescription period applies for breaches falling within the remit of the enforcement authorities of the Directorate of Consumer Protection.

Fines for various breaches of Law 2251 are being imposed on a fairly regular basis and on a variety of entities with respect to their activities. Unfortunately, there are no central records or other e-bases listing such fines and the judicial development of the respective administrative decisions that imposed them since the person/entity fined may challenge the decision before the administrative courts. Based on the review carried out for the last five-year period (2019-2023) in case law bases, most of the imposed fines concern abusive general terms and conditions and various types of unfair/misleading commercial practices, including advertising, whereas fines for product safety breaches are rare. Indicatively, we would mention decision No 435/2020 of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal which confirmed a fine of EUR9,000 imposed for the placing into the market of unsafe children’s clothes (determining this as reasonable in the circumstances of that case).

The causes of action for product liability range from strict liability for a manufacturer to administrative and criminal liability. More specifically, these can be explained as follows.

• Strict liability: This derives from the PLD as transposed into Greek law by Law 2251 (see 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework). Article 6, paragraph 1 of Law 2251 provides that “the producer shall be liable for any damage caused by a defect in his product”.  Therefore, the prerequisites for a manufacturer to be held liable are: (a) a product placed on the market by the manufacturer being defective; (b) damage that has occurred; and (c) a causal link between the defect and the damage (considered under the theory of “causa adequata”).  The strict liability regime does not preclude other liability systems from providing a consumer with greater protection in a specific case (Article 14, paragraph 5 of Law 2251). 
• Contractual liability: This requires a contractual relationship between the parties where the buyer may not necessarily be a consumer (Articles 513 ff. of the Greek Civil Code (GCC) on contracts of sale of goods, as in force, following the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/771 “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods” (which, among others, repealed Directive 1999/44/EC), by Law 4967/2022 (in force as of 9 September 2022). A seller may be strictly liable, ie, irrespective of fault, for the lack of conformity of the sold product with the sales contract at the time the risk passes to the buyer, as such conformity is defined by law. The knowledge of the buyer releases the seller from liability under stipulated conditions, among other reasons for such release (in particular Articles 534-540 of the GCC).

• Tortious liability: The claimant must establish the defendant’s fault in tort claims. However, case law reverses the burden of such proof in favour of the claimant/consumer based on the “theory of spheres”, thus obliging the defendant to prove absence of fault in order to be released from liability (in particular, Articles 914, 925 and 932, together with Articles 281 and 288 of the GCC and case law).
• Criminal and administrative liability: These derive from the Greek Criminal Code and Law 4177/2013 on “Rules Regulating the Market of Products and the Provision of Services”, as in force, supplemented by secondary legislation (Article 13a of Law 2251).

Any person that has suffered damages due to a product defect may bring a product liability claim subject to the general substantive and procedural requirements (in particular, Articles 127 ff. of GCC and 62 ff. of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (GCCP).

Collective redress proceedings also exist (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).

The time limits for bringing a product liability claim are as follows.

• For strict liability, a three-year prescription period applies, while the right to initiate proceedings against the producer is extinguished upon the expiry of a 10-year period from the date the producer put the product into circulation (Article 6, paragraph 13 of Law 2251). The prescription period must be properly invoked by a litigant, contrary to the time-limitation period, which is taken into account by courts ex officio (Articles 277 and 280 of the GCC).
• For a claim in tort, a general five-year prescription period applies; in all cases, the claim is extinguished 20 years from the date of the tortious act (Article 937 of the GCC).
• For contractual liability, the prescription period is five years for immovable property, two years for movables and, in the case of continuous supply of digital elements, six months from the end of the contractual term, save for the provision of a guarantee (Articles 554–559 of the GCC, including further details thereon).
• For representative actions in force as of 26 June 2023, a special one-year prescription period is provided for seeking injunctive measures, commencing on the date of the last incident of unlawful behaviour challenged, provided the same was known to the average consumer (new Article 10l, paragraph 2 of Law 2251; (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).

There are no specific rules for product liability claims regarding the requirements for establishing jurisdiction of the Greek courts. Therefore, the general provisions for bringing private claims apply, and the civil courts have jurisdiction to hear product liability claims. Jurisdiction is examined by the courts ex officio (Articles 1-4 of the GCCP).

There are no mandatory steps to be taken, such as pre-action procedures and requirements, before proceedings can be commenced formally for product liability claims, as generally for any civil claims. In practice, a so-called extra-judicial notice of protest is often served by the claimant on the defendant by a court bailiff before the filing of a lawsuit for warning purposes or for a potential out-of-court settlement; however, court proceedings may only be commenced by a lawsuit.

Preservation of evidence, including the product itself in product liability cases, is possible either when all litigants agree or, as a rule, when there is a risk that a specific means of evidence will be lost or could deteriorate in future, or if the status of an object in dispute needs to be determined immediately. This requires the filing of a petition to the court even before the trial commences, the court being the main trial court or, exceptionally, any other court that can make an immediate decision in the case of an imminent risk. Simplified injunction proceedings apply to the petition at issue. Should the court accept the petition for preservatory evidence, it orders details such as the time frame for conclusion of the evidential procedure. The court of the main trial must take into account the preservatory evidence conducted as above, irrespective of whether the risk occurred or not (Articles 348-351 and 686 ff. of the GCCP).

In general, there are no rules of discovery in judicial proceedings. The litigants disclose any evidence supporting their case, per their discretion, by filing their submissions at the specified time, depending on the court and proceeding type. Evidential means are specified, and their admissibility is subject to restrictions (Articles 335 ff. of the GCCP). The general principles of good faith, bonos mores and honest conduct apply (in particular, Articles 116 and 450 of the GCCP). The litigants may request that the court order the disclosure of documents in the possession of their opponents or a third party under certain conditions (Articles 450 ff. of the GCCP and 901-903 of the GCC).

Expert evidence is generally regulated and also covers product liability cases.

If a court finds that the issues to be proven require special scientific qualifications, it may appoint one or more court experts, describing their task and the timeframe for the expert report and adjourning the hearing for that purpose (Articles 368-392 of the GCCP). The experts obtain knowledge of the case file regarding the technical issues for which they were appointed and/or may request clarifications from the litigants or third parties. In this case, each litigant is entitled to appoint a technical advisor who submits their opinion and raises relevant questions to the court-appointed expert. The opinion of the court-appointed expert is not binding on the court.

Additionally, the litigants may submit to the court an unlimited number of expert/technical reports supporting their allegations. The reports of litigant-appointed experts are of lesser evidentiary value than those of the court-appointed experts.

Factual or expert witnesses appointed by the litigants may give sworn depositions before a notary public, a lawyer (although not the litigant’s lawyer) or, if outside Greece, a Greek consular authority. The opponent must be summoned to such depositions two working days in advance, and is entitled to obtain a copy prior to trial. Non-compliance with the procedural requirements renders the deposition inadmissible. Various procedural requirements in the taking of depositions apply – eg, regarding the total number allowed, which is up to three per litigant and up to two for rebutting the opponent’s depositions (Articles 421-424 of the GCCP).

In civil litigation, including product liability claims, and under ordinary proceedings, a claim must be fully proven by the litigant raising it, who thus bears the burden of proof, unless it is reversed by law or case law (see 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law). Exceptionally, such as in injunctive proceedings, the standard of proof may be lower and based “on the balance of probabilities” (Articles 347, 690 of the GCCP).

Private law disputes, including product liability cases, are tried by civil courts and by one to three judges, and thus not by a jury, depending on the amount involved in the dispute. As a rule, justices of the peace are competent to try claims valued up to EUR20,000; one-member first-instance courts, claims between EUR20,000 and EUR250,000; and three-member first-instance courts, claims exceeding EUR250,000 (Articles 14 and 18 of the GCCP). Following the unification of the first instance judicial level within an overall restructuring of courts’ territorial and subject matter competence by Law 5108/2024, the justices of the peace will be either abolished or absorbed by the existing first-instance courts as from 16 September 2024 (or from 16 September 2026 regarding the judicial areas of Athens, Piraeus and Poros).

In particular, representative actions are subject to the exclusive competence of the three-member first instance courts (Article 10l, paragraph 1 of Law 2251; see also 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).

Every definite court decision, including one on a product liability case, issued by a first instance court may be contested before an appellate court. An appeal can be filed not only by the defeated litigant but also by the successful litigant whose allegations were partially accepted by the court. The appeal timeframe is 30 days for appellants residing in Greece and 60 days for those residing abroad or being of an unknown residence; the time period starts from the service of the definite decision. If the first instance decision is not served by a litigant on the other(s), the appeal timeframe is two years from the issue of the same (Article 518 of the GCCP).

Further, a cassation before the supreme court may be filed against an appellate court decision under restrictions and for specified reasons. The timeframe is similar to that for appeals as above (Article 552 ff. of the GCCP).

As far as defence is concerned, manufacturers may be relieved from liability if they prove that:

• they did not place the product on the market;
• when they manufactured the product, they had no intention of putting it into circulation;
• at the time the product was placed on the market, the defect did not exist;
• the defect was caused by the fact that the product was manufactured in such a way that derogation was not permitted (subject to mandatory regulation); or
• when the product was placed on the market, the applicable scientific and technological rules at that time prevented the defect from being discovered (the so-called state-of-the-art or development risk defence; Article 6, paragraph 8 of Law 2251).

Adherence to mandatory regulatory requirements may constitute the manufacturer’s defence in product liability cases (Article 6, paragraph 8 of Law 2251; see 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims).

For costs, the “loser pays” rule applies. Court expenses are “only the court and out-of-court expenses that were necessary for the trial” and, in particular, include: (a) stamp duties; (b) judicial revenue stamp duty; (c) counsels’ minimum fees set by the Lawyers’ Code (Law 4194/2013, as in force); (d) witnesses’ and experts’ expenses; and (e) expenses paid for the submission of evidential means, as well as the successful litigants’ travelling expenses in order for them to attend the hearing. However, the expenses that the successful litigant recovers are, as per general practice, substantially lower than the actual expenses.

The court offsets the expenses between the litigants in the event of a partial win or loss, while it may offset them (and does so, as a rule) between litigants who are relatives or on the basis of complex legal issues involved in the litigation. Offsetting only part of the expenses is also possible when “there was a reasonable doubt on the outcome of the trial” (Articles 173-193 and, in particular, 178-179 of the GCCP).

Generally, and in product liability claims, there are various types of funding, as follows.

Public Funding

This is regulated by Law 3226/2004 on the provision of legal aid to low-income citizens (implementing Directive 2003/8/EC), together with Articles 194-204 of the GCCP.

According to Law 3226/2004 (as in force), beneficiaries of legal aid are low-income citizens of the EU, as well as of a third state, provided that they reside legally within the EU. For civil and commercial cases, low-income citizens are those with an annual familial income that does not exceed two-thirds of the minimum annual income provided by law. Beneficiaries may also be the victims of certain crimes and citizens suffering 67% disability or more, irrespective of the level of their income. Legal aid is granted on the condition that the case, subject to the discretion of the court, is not deemed unjust or uneconomical.

Legal aid in civil and commercial matters entails an exemption from the payment of all or part of the court’s expenses, the submission of a relevant petition by the beneficiary, and the nomination of a lawyer, notary and judicial bailiff, in order to represent the beneficiary before the court. The exemption primarily includes stamp duty payment and judicial revenue stamp duty, and, generally, the remuneration of witnesses and experts and the lawyers’, notaries’ and judicial bailiffs’ fees.

Contingency Fees and Other Conditional Payment Arrangements

These are allowed between clients and lawyers under the following basic restrictions: they must be made in writing, and the maximum fee percentage agreed may not exceed 20% of the subject matter of the case at issue (or 30% if more than one lawyer is involved). Further detailed regulation is provided by the Lawyers’ Code (article 60 of Law 4194/2013).

Third-party Litigation Funding (TPLF)

Since this is not specifically regulated, it is informally permitted. Some insurance companies offer to cover litigation expenses. However, this is neither common nor really “culturally” accepted. Also, the lack of a legal framework could raise issues of transparency.

As of 26 June 2023, TPLF is specifically prohibited regarding representative actions (new article 10n of Law 2251; see2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims).On a related matter, the general regulation on the financial means of qualified entities (QEs) that may bring representative actions as of 26 June 2023 is expansive vis-à-vis the previous regime, and includes grants or concessions from the Greek state and limited dues collected from consumers wishing to be represented in a specific representative action seeking redress measures (new Articles 10c, paragraph 4 and 14, paragraphs 4d and 4e of Law 2251).

At EU level, on 13 September 2022 the EU Parliament passed a resolution proposing a directive “on the regulation of third-party funding” (P9 TA(2022)0308; “Responsible private funding of litigation”). The EU Commission agreed to run a mapping in the EU on the TPLF status and timeline for the report to be issued is towards the end of 2024.

Following transposition of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 “on representative actions” (RAD) made by Law 5019/2023 (“Law 5019”), a new collective redress landscape was enacted in Greece, in force as of 26 June 2023. Law 5019 modified Law 2251 (see 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework) by replacing the latter’s provisions on collective lawsuits former Article 10 of Law 2251) and providing for the issue of numerous Ministerial Decisions which will specify various aspects of the new regulation (Article 14 of Law 2251).

Representative actions may be only filed by QEs, either: (a) Greek QEs, being consumer associations which meet the legal prerequisites and are registered with a special registrar maintained with the General Secretariat of the Ministry (see 1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety); or (b) bodies registered as QEs in other EU member states. A Greek QE must prove that it has a minimum 12-month actual public activity in favour of consumers’ interests to be qualified as such, among other criteria imposed by Law 5019. An assessment of whether Greek QEs meet the set criteria will be made at least every two years by a special committee formed at the General Secretariat.

Representative actions may regard injunctive and/or redress measures, and may only be brought before a court. Apart from few exceptions, RAD provisions are followed on content, proceedings and the effect thereof, with required adaptations to the Greek legal framework (new Articles 10a-10r of Law 2251).

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in recent years over the so-called “Dieselgate” claims on a variety of legal grounds, mainly product liability/product safety, as well as on contract-for-sale and tort rules. The vast majority of the lawsuits were dismissed on a combination of motives, such as vagueness, lack of legal basis or causal link or standing to be sued with respect to the defendants.

Indicative court decisions that rejected such claims include: Patras First Instance Court 119/2022; Thessaloniki First Instance Court 800/2020; Athens Justice of the Peace Nos 1940/2022, 1941/2022, 1463/2021, 325/2020, 1104/2020 and 3222/2020; Chalandri Justice of the Peace Nos 26/2022 and 145/2020; Amaroussion Justice of the Peace No 146/2021; and Serres Justice of the Peace No 39/2020. Conversely, Athens First Instance Court No 4749/2021 upheld the claim, although only partially.

Law 2251 has been amended several times, and the latest notable modifications affecting product liability and product safety are as follows.

• In 2018, material changes were made to: (a) the definition of “consumer”, which was narrowed, having previously been extremely broad; (b) the regulatory authorities and their enforcement duties; (c) the funding of consumer associations; and (d) administrative proceedings and sanctions imposed (Articles 1a.1, 7 and former Articles 10, 13a and 13b of Law 2251).
• In 2022-2023, further changes were enacted regarding: (a) the new legal framework on collective redress in force as from 26 June 2023 (see 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims); and (b) a new set of rules on compliance supervision, enforcement measures and sanctions (new Articles 10a-10r, 13a-13i and 14 of Law 2251).

Overall, there is a continuing trend towards increased and broader consumer rights, as well as sanctions for relevant breaches.

Future policy developments in product liability and product safety are expected from the EU legislator involving new digital technologies and, in particular, artificial intelligence (AI). In this context, the EU Commission proposed on 28 September 2022 two complementary Directives: (a) a revised PLD to repeal and replace the current PLD on which a political agreement was reached on 14 December 2023; and (b) the AI liability Directive to adapt non-contractual civil liability rules to AI and to ensure broader protection for damage caused by AI systems by alleviating the burden of proof in compensation claims pursued under national fault-based liability regimes.

Specifically, the revised PLD is generally expansive on: (i) “damages” (covering psychological damage and loss or corruption of data and removing the minimum claim threshold); (ii) the “product” (closely interacting with services and extending to digital manufacturing files and software, including AI); and (iii) the “producer” (including economic operators such as software developers, online marketplaces and service providers). At the same time, it introduces simplified proof of “defect” and “causation” (with more detailed definition and introduction of presumptions and of a subjective criterion) and extends the expiry period up to 25 years for when a claimant could not initiate proceedings due a latent a personal injury.