The legal framework on product safety in Finland consists of both European Union legislation and national legislation. The following regulations are central to product safety in Finland.

General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 (GPSR)

An EU regulation directly applicable in the member states, this sets out the general safety requirements for consumer products, the obligations of economic operators and providers of online marketplaces, market surveillance of consumer products, co-operation between authorities, as well as certain consumer rights. The GPSR aims, in particular, to ensure the health and safety of consumers and the proper functioning of the internal market for consumer products.

In Finland, the GPSR is implemented through the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Consumer Services Safety Act.

Consumer Product Safety Act (184/2025)

This Act provides for those aspects of consumer product safety which, according to the GPSR, must be enacted in national legislation, such as language requirements relating to product safety, the competent market surveillance authorities and their powers. In addition, the Act prescribes the sanctions applicable to violations of the GPSR.

Consumer Services Safety Act (185/2025)

This is a general act on the safety of consumer services. The Act prescribes provisions on the requirements for safe consumer services and the assessment of safety, the obligations of service providers, the supervisory authorities and their enforcement measures, binding decisions of supervisory authorities and the sanctions applicable for violations of the Act.

The Market Surveillance and Compliance of Products Regulation (EU) 2019/1020

An EU regulation directly applicable in the member states, this aims to reduce the number of non-compliant products on the internal market, strengthening market surveillance, improving the functioning of the internal market, and ensuring a level playing field for all economic operators.

Act on the Market Surveillance of Certain Products (1137/2016)

A horizontal, general piece of legislation covering the basic provisions for the market surveillance of products falling within the scope of several different acts. The Act supplements the EU market surveillance regulatory framework at the national level. The Act on the Market Surveillance of Certain Products does not apply independently without the sector-specific regulation of the sectoral laws falling within its scope.

Other Product and Sector-Specific Legislation

A large number of different product and sector-specific laws apply, including, for example, the Medicines Act (395/1987), the Chemicals Act (599/2013) and the Food Act (297/2021).

Such sector-specific legislation contains more detailed provisions concerning the safety issues for certain products. Product-specific legislation takes precedence over general acts.

In Finland, the ministries are responsible for enacting product safety legislation within their respective administrative sectors.

In addition, product safety is supervised by several different authorities. As a general rule, supervisory responsibility is divided according to different product categories.

Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency (Tukes)

The principal authority for product safety supervision, the agency supervises the safety and compliance of a wide range of chemicals, products and services, as well as industrial operations. It is also a key market surveillance authority in the field of product safety.

Tukes carries out risk-based and spot-check supervision. Tukes may conduct inspections, investigate accidents, issue prohibitions and orders, require products to be withdrawn from the market and recalled, and impose conditional fines.

Finnish Food Authority

This leads and develops food control throughout Finland. Its competence covers, in particular, the supervision and promotion of food safety and quality, animal health and welfare, and plant health.

The Finnish Food Authority has nationwide responsibility for guidance and supervision, as well as powers relating to information systems, registers and the performance of public duties. It may also prohibit marketing that contravenes food legislation, order corrective marketing measures, and reinforce an order or prohibition by means of a conditional fine.

Finnish Customs

Finnish Customs supervises goods imported into Finland at the border and may intervene in the safety of imported products. In accordance with the Market Surveillance and Compliance of Products Regulation, Customs acts as the external border authority responsible for the external border control of products entering the EU market.

Customs has the right to suspend the release of a product for free circulation and, as a competent market surveillance authority, may independently decide on further measures in relation to certain product groups, such as goods intended for consumer use.

Finnish Medicines Agency (Fimea)

Fimea supervises the compliance of medical devices and the operators of medical devices in Finland. It also supervises the marketing of medical devices and incidents involving them.

Supervision carried out by Fimea includes inspections, the handling of incident reports, and the supervision of clinical examinations.

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Stuk)

Stuk supervises radiation devices, radioactive substances, and radioactivity in consumer goods. Supervision is carried out through various inspections and other supervisory methods, such as supervision inquiries.

Transport and Communication Agency (Traficom)

Traficom supervises products relating to aviation, maritime transport and road traffic, as well as radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment. It is also responsible for market surveillance in the transport and communications sectors.

If a product does not comply with the applicable requirements, Traficom may, for example, require the manufacturer or importer to remedy the deficiencies or remove the product from the market, and may prohibit its sale.

National Police Board of Finland

The National Police Board of Finland supervises firearms and permits for the purchase of explosive precursors. The principal supervisory tool is the police licensing system, through which the misuse of firearms and explosives may be addressed preventatively.

Finnish Supervisory Agency

The Finnish Supervisory Agency supervises products used in the workplace, such as machinery intended for professional use and personal protective equipment, as well as alcohol and tobacco products. It also supervises producer responsibility.

The Agency may, for example, prohibit an economic operator from placing a product on the market, making it available on the market, or otherwise supplying it if the product does not comply with requirements, and it may require an unlawful product to be withdrawn from the market.

The Agency is entitled to use administrative enforcement measures, such as conditional fines, to ensure compliance with legislation.

Municipalities

Municipalities are responsible for local food control and health protection. As supervisory authorities, municipalities have the power to issue remarks and instructions and, where necessary, to take administrative enforcement measures.

Finnish legislation includes an obligation to take corrective measures in situations where a product is not safe.

If a product has safety defects, or a product or service does not comply with the appropriate requirements, an authority may issue a non-inclusion decision regarding that product or service. A company may be ordered to stop supplying products to retailers, and retailing or otherwise supplying products. The company may also be ordered to alter a product or activity so that it complies with legislation, or take certain measures such as producing documentation required by legislation.

In addition, the authority may issue an order requiring a product recall. In a recall, the product is collected back from consumers or other end users, and information about the risk must be communicated as extensively as possible and targeted in a manner that will reach as many of the consumers who bought the product as possible.

If a company has manufactured, imported, sold, or otherwise distributed a product that poses a risk, the company must notify Tukes about it and co-operate with the Authority. For national notifications, Tukes provides a dedicated form. If the product has been sold in other EU or EEA countries, a notification must also be submitted via the Product Safety Business Alert Gateway.

A notification must be made if the product causes, for example, a health hazard, an accident, an incident or a serious event that could have resulted in an accident. Even if the product presents a lower level of risk, notification must still be made if the product is widely distributed or a large number of products have been sold, if the danger is difficult for consumers to detect, or the product is intended for children, young people or the elderly.

Notification of a dangerous product is primarily made by the manufacturer located in the EU or, if the manufacturer is located outside the EU, a representative of the manufacturer or importer. The notifier must carry out a risk assessment of the product. If a distributor suspects that a product it distributes is not compliant, the distributor must ensure that the manufacturer, importer or, if necessary, the distributor itself takes the necessary actions.

The notification must be made immediately or without undue delay from the moment the operator becomes aware of the dangerous product.

In Finland, sanctions for violations of product safety obligations are primarily administrative. An authority may impose a penalty payment on a manufacturer, importer, distributor, authorised representative or provider of an online marketplace where the obligations under the GPSR have been violated intentionally or negligently. The penalty payment may amount to a maximum of 1% of the turnover for the year preceding the end of the violation, subject to an upper limit of EUR100,000 for legal persons and EUR10,000 for natural persons.

In addition to the penalty payment, a prohibition or enforcement order may be issued against the company, the product may be ordered to be withdrawn from the market, or the company may be required to initiate a recall procedure. If the company fails to comply with an authority’s decision or order, it may be enforced by means of a conditional fine or a notice of enforced performance.

Criminal liability is possible in serious cases. However, under the legislation, the same act may not be subject to both a penalty payment and criminal proceedings. Penalties for a health offence are imposed in accordance with the Finnish Criminal Code (39/1889). According to Chapter 44 Section 1 of the Criminal Code, a health offence is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for at most six months.

In Finland, supervisory authorities publish information on products subject to sales bans and recall procedures on the website vaarallisettuotteet.fi. The website also compiles voluntary recalls, withdrawals from the market and safety notices issued by companies.

In Finland, personal injury and property damage are the main reasons for legal action in product liability matters.

The legal framework regarding defective products is governed by a dual system. The Product Liability Act governs cases involving personal injuries and consumer property damage, while commercial property damages are mainly regulated by the Sale of Goods Act (355/1987).

Product Liability Act

The current Product Liability Act (694/1990) is based on the EU’s earlier Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC. The Act applies only to damage caused to a person or to property meant for private use or consumption and primarily used for such purposes by the injured party. A product means all movables. Damage to the product itself and pure economic losses are excluded from the scope of the legislation.

The basis for liability under the Product Liability Act is that the product was not as safe as could have been expected. In assessing the safety of the product, the time when the product was put in circulation, its foreseeable use, the marketing of the product and instructions for use, as well as other circumstances, will be taken into consideration.

A claim based on the Product Liability Act may be brought against the manufacturer of the product, as well as against the importer. An importer is defined as the party that has brought the product into the EU. A claim may also be brought against any party which has marketed the product as their own, if the product is labelled with their name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature. If the manufacturer of the product cannot be identified, the party that has put the product into circulation (ie, the seller) will be liable for damage caused by the product in the same way as the manufacturer would be, unless, within a reasonable time after receiving a claim for compensation (in practice, six months), they inform the injured party of the identity of the manufacturer or of the person who imported the product into the EU.

Sale of Goods Act

In Finland, the Product Liability Act is not applicable to commercial property damages. In these cases, a claim is typically based on the sales contract, general principles of contract law and the Sale of Goods Act (355/1987), which is non-mandatory law, as well as, where applicable, specific legislation relating to a particular product.

In business-to-business (B2B) product liability, liability is based on fault (negligence). However, in these situations the burden of proof is reversed. Accordingly, in order to avoid liability, the seller must be able to demonstrate that the damage was not caused by negligence on their part.

Only the injured party has the right to bring a product liability claim in Finland. An “injured party” is defined as a person who has suffered personal injury or damage to property caused by a product with a safety defect, where the property was, at the time of the damage, used primarily for private purposes.

As explained in 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims, the Consumer Ombudsman may also bring a class action, for example, where there are multiple injured parties and the other requirements for such an action are met.

A claim based on the Product Liability Act must be instituted within three years from the date on which the claimant became aware or should have become aware of the damage, the defect in the product and the identity of the liable party. However, a claim for damages must be instituted within ten years from the date on which the liable party put the product which caused the injury or damage into circulation.

In commercial product liability, the general rules on the limitation of claims apply. As a main rule, a claim becomes time-barred after three years from the date on which the buyer noticed a defect or non-conformity in the object of sale.

However, the limitation period for damages will, in any case, be interrupted no later than ten years from the breach of contract or from the event that led to the damage.

The limitation period may be interrupted informally.

The competent courts in cases based on the Product Liability Act are the district court of the defendant’s domicile, the court of the claimant’s own domicile, or the court of the place where the damage occurred.

In international cases, jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation or other applicable international agreements.

There are no mandatory steps that must be taken before legal proceedings can be commenced in product liability cases under Finnish law.

Finnish legislation does not contain provisions on the preservation of evidence. However, the destruction of evidence (eg, a product) weakens the position of the party bearing the burden of proof regarding the safety or defectiveness of the product.

There are no specific rules in Finland governing the disclosure of documents or other evidence in product liability cases, but the general rules for disclosure of documents apply.

Finnish law does not recognise a formal “discovery” procedure. However, the general rules on evidence require the parties to obtain the evidence necessary for the case. In addition, at the request of a party, the court may order that an object or document be brought to court or that an inspection be conducted if the object or document could be of significance as proof, or if conducting an inspection could be of significance in obtaining proof. The requesting party must be able to specify the document sought and justify its relevance as evidence.

The court may enforce its order by imposing a conditional fine and by requesting a distraint officer to bring the object or document to the court. Furthermore, the court has the right to obtain executive assistance from the police in order to ensure that an inspection is conducted.

There are no specific rules in Finland governing expert evidence in product liability cases. However, the general provisions regarding expert evidence also apply in product liability cases.

According to general provisions, an expert witness must be independent and provide an impartial written opinion. An expert witness is heard orally in court only if it is necessary to clarify ambiguities, deficiencies or inconsistencies in the expert’s statement, if the court otherwise considers it necessary, or if a party so requests and the hearing is not considered manifestly unnecessary.       

In product liability cases in Finland, the burden of proof lies with the injured party. The injured party must prove the injury or damage, the defect in the product as well as the causal relationship between the defect and the injury or damage.

The assessment of the evidence presented is carried out in accordance with the general principles of evidence applicable in Finland, meaning that the court evaluates the evidence based on the principle of free consideration of the evidence. Free consideration of the evidence means that the court is not bound by any provisions regulating its discretion. Rather, the court is obliged to freely assess the probative value of the evidence presented.

The injured party must present credible evidence in support of their claims. There is no fixed threshold for the sufficiency of evidence. Rather, the assessment depends on the evidentiary possibilities in each individual case. In practice, it is often sufficient that the evidence clearly exceeds a probability of at least 50%.

Actions for damages based on the Product Liability Act are heard in the general courts in Finland. As a main rule, proceedings are initiated in the district court of the defendant’s domicile or habitual residence.

In most cases, the judge who has been responsible for the preparatory stage presides over the main hearing and decides the case alone. If necessary, the main hearing may be conducted by a panel of three judges.

There is no general maximum amount set for damages in Finland. Finnish tort law is based on the principle of full compensation. This means that damages must be awarded in an amount that places the injured party, as far as possible, in the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred. At the same time, the principle prohibiting unjust enrichment applies, meaning that the injured party must not benefit from the harmful event or be placed in a better position than before the damage.

The Product Liability Act provides for a deductible threshold, below which compensation is not payable for damage to property under the Act (however, the injured party may be entitled to bring claims, for example, under the Damages Act (412/1974)). Under the new EU Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853, this deductible threshold will, however, be abolished entirely.

Product liability cases are civil matters and there are no specific rules on appeals in these cases. Instead, the general rules of civil procedure apply.

A review of the decision of the district court is requested by appeal from a court of appeal. An appeal requires continued consideration granted by the court of appeal. A party that wishes to request a review of the decision must file a declaration of intent to appeal no later than on the seventh day after the day when the decision of the district court was announced or issued. The time limit for filing an appeal with the court of appeal is 30 days from the date when the decision of the district court was announced or issued.

A review of a judgment or decision of a court of appeal is requested, by appeal, at the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal must be sought from the Supreme Court. The time allowed for requesting leave to appeal and lodging the appeal is 60 days from the date on which the decision of the court of appeal was issued.

In addition, extraordinary remedies are available in respect of final judgments. These include a complaint based on a procedural error, reversal of a final judgment, and granting a new time limit.

The defendant may defend against a product liability claim, firstly, on the grounds that the damage is not causally linked to the use of the product. The defendant may also argue that the product was not defective (or at least not at the time it was put into circulation), that the product was not put into circulation in the course of a business, or that the defect was due to the fact that the product had to comply with mandatory requirements issued by the authorities.

The liability of the manufacturer or producer of a component will also be exempted if they can prove that the defect which caused the injury or damage is attributable to the design of the product into which the component was incorporated, or to the instructions given by the product manufacturer.

In Finland, the manufacturer cannot defend on the grounds that the defect could not have been foreseen on the basis of the scientific and technical knowledge available at the time the product was put into circulation.

The defendant may, of course, also rely on the limitation of liability if the three-year or ten-year limitation periods under the Product Liability Act have expired (see 2.3 Time Limits for Product Liability Claims).

A manufacturer (or other liable party) may be exonerated from liability if they can prove that a defect is due to the fact that the product had to comply with mandatory requirements issued by the authorities. However, the fact that a product complies with all applicable regulations and official requirements does not in itself preclude liability if the product has a defect.

In product liability cases, the general rules on legal costs apply in Finland. The claimant is required to pay a general fee for court proceedings, which is relatively modest (currently EUR610).

As a main rule, the party that loses the matter is liable for all reasonable legal costs incurred by the necessary measures of the opposing party. Recoverable costs include fees of the attorney, costs of evidence (including expert evidence), and the party’s own work-related expenses.

In exceptional circumstances, such as where the legal situation is unclear or where multiple claims have been made and some are decided in favour of the other party, the court may order each party to bear their own legal costs.

The court may also reduce the amount of legal costs to be paid if, having regard to the circumstances that led to the proceedings, the parties’ positions and the importance of the case, it would be unreasonable to require a party to bear the full costs of the opposing party. This may be relevant, for example, in a product liability case where an individual consumer seeks compensation from a large company.

In Finland, there is no general regulation specifically governing third-party litigation funding, and it is, in principle, permitted. However, in the context of class actions, it is subject to certain restrictions. An external provider of funding to a class action must not be a competitor of the defendant in the class action or be dependent on the defendant. Nor may the funding provider influence the decisions made by the plaintiff in the context of the hearing of the class action in a manner that is detrimental to the collective interests of consumers. Such third-party funding is rare.

In Finland, various forms of conditional fee arrangements, such as a “success fee” or “no win, no fee” agreements, are permissible between an attorney and a client, as long as the remuneration remains reasonable as required by law and the arrangement does not breach the professional rules of conduct applicable to attorneys.

In addition, Finland has a state legal aid system under which individuals who cannot afford to cover legal costs themselves may receive legal aid based on their income. Various forms of legal expenses insurance are also available to cover litigation costs, and these insurances are very common in Finland, being included in most home insurance policies available on the market.

Class Actions

In Finland, class actions are possible under the Act on Class Actions (444/2007). The Act allows for consumer class actions against traders.

A case may be heard as a class action, if several persons have claims against the same defendant, based on the same or similar circumstances, the hearing of the case as a class action is expedient in view of the size of the class, and the subject matter of the claims presented and the evidence presented and the class has been defined with adequate precision.

A class action is brought by a qualified entity designated by law. Such qualified entities include:

• the Consumer Ombudsman in matters within its supervisory competence;
• organisations promoting the collective interests of consumers; and
• qualified entities designated in another member state of the European Economic Area for the purposes of cross-border representative actions under EU Representative Actions Directive (EU) 2020/1828.

Class actions could, in principle, be suitable for product liability cases. However, in practice, no class actions have been brought in Finland since the Act on Class Actions entered into force.

Co-Ordinated Proceedings

In Finland, several product liability cases may be joined and heard in the same proceedings in accordance with the general procedure rules.

The prerequisites are that the actions have been brought in the same court, the court is competent to consider the actions to be joined, and the actions may be considered according to the same procedure.

In recent years, only one decision concerning product liability has been issued by the Supreme Court of Finland, namely KKO 2023:8. The case is particularly significant because the Supreme Court made a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU delivered its ruling on 7 July 2022 in Keskinäinen vakuutusyhtiö Fennia, C-264/21 (EU:C:2022:536).

The case concerned a fire caused by a defective coffee maker. An insurance company compensated the consumer for the damage caused by the fire under a home insurance policy, as a result of which the consumer’s right to claim compensation for product liability was transferred to the insurance company.

The coffee maker had been manufactured in Romania by an Italian company, B, which was a subsidiary owned by a Dutch company, A. The coffee maker and its packaging bore the names “Philips” and “Saeco”, which were trade marks registered to A. According to the insurance company, A was liable for the product liability claim because it owned shares in B and because the coffee maker bore A’s trade marks. Furthermore, the insurance company argued that the coffee maker had been marketed on A’s Finnish-language website.

The district court held that A had marketed the coffee maker bearing its trade marks in Finland and found A liable for the damage caused by the defect in the product. By contrast, the court of appeal held that it had not been proven that A had marketed the coffee maker as its own in Finland and therefore found that A was not liable for the product damage. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether A had marketed the coffee maker bearing its trade marks as its own within the meaning of the Product Liability Act.

The CJEU held in its preliminary ruling that Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “producer” does not require that the person who has affixed their name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature to the product, or allowed it to be affixed, must also present themselves as the manufacturer in some other way.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court concluded that A had marketed the product as its own within the meaning of the Product Liability Act, as the coffee maker bore its trade mark. The Supreme Court held that A was liable for the damage suffered by the insurance company, provided that the other conditions for liability were met.       

Product Liability

The EU has reformed product liability legislation through the new Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853, adopted on 23 October 2024. The Directive must be implemented in the member states by 9 December 2026 at the latest.

Under the new Directive, the concept of a “product” in product liability legislation will henceforth refer to all movable items, regardless of whether they are integrated into or connected to another movable item or immovable property, as well as electricity, digital manufacturing files, raw materials, and software. Excluded from the scope of the Directive are free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the scope of commercial activities, as well as damage caused by nuclear accidents in so far as liability for such damage falls within the scope of international conventions ratified by the member states.

The new Product Liability Directive expands the scope of compensable damage under product liability to cover, in addition to personal injury and property damage, damage to property used partly for professional purposes. Furthermore, there will no longer be a lower limit on compensation for damages.

The new Directive does not introduce particularly significant changes to the currently applicable Finnish Product Liability Act, as many of the amendments are already included in existing legislation. For example, under current law, damages already cover both tangible and intangible losses.

Under the new Directive, the circle of liable parties is also extended to include the importer of a defective products or components, the manufacturer’s authorised representative and, where there is no importer or authorised representative established within the EU, the fulfilment service provider.

In addition, the new Directive introduces changes to limitation periods in product liability matters. Alongside the existing three-year and ten-year limitation periods, a new final maximum limitation period of 25 years will apply in situations where the injured party has been unable to bring proceedings within ten years due to the latency of personal injury.

The Directive also introduces procedural reforms, such as obligations relating to the disclosure of evidence, presumptions, and alleviations of the burden of proof in certain circumstances. These changes are justified, among other reasons, by the disadvantaged position of claimants seeking compensation compared with product manufacturers in terms of access to and understanding of relevant information.

Product Safety

In Finland, national product safety legislation was reformed in 2025 following the entry into force of the new EU General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 (GPSR). The previous Product Safety Directive had been drafted before the widespread emergence of digital commerce and smart devices, which led the EU to recognise the need for a modern regulatory framework. Under the GPSR, the concept of safety is expanded beyond physical hazards to include cybersecurity risks, impacts on mental health, and software modifications.

Product Liability

Finland is currently undertaking a legislative reform project to implement the new Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853. The implementation of the Directive into the laws of member states will require national amendments, in Finland at least, to the Product Liability Act (649/1990) and the Consumer Protection Act (38/1978). The legislative amendments are scheduled to enter into force on 9 December 2026.

The purpose of these reforms is to modernise product liability legislation so that it reflects the contemporary digital era and extensive distribution networks. In future, the definition of a “product” will be broader and will also encompass, for example, various forms of software and artificial intelligence systems. The new legislation also expands the range of parties liable for damage beyond its previous scope. In addition, the new regulatory framework will ease the burden of proof borne by injured claimants in legal proceedings.

Product Safety

The EU General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 (GPSR) entered into force on 13 December 2024. The Regulation has introduced changes to the requirements applicable to general consumer goods and to the obligations of economic operators. It is closely connected with other relevant EU legislation, such as the Market Surveillance Regulation and the Digital Services Act.

Although the GPSR is directly applicable law in all EU member states, Finland has, as a result of the Regulation, also enacted new national legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act (184/2025) and the Consumer Services Safety Act (185/2025), while repealing previously applicable legislation. These provisions do not cover risks to property, meaning that the obligations and supervision established under this legislative framework do not extend to the prevention or mitigation of property damage. Consumer safety legislation functions as subsidiary and supplementary general legislation, which means that, in addition to complying with the general safety requirements of consumer safety legislation, products must also satisfy the requirements imposed by product-specific sectoral legislation.

The GPSR applies to nearly all new, repaired and refurbished physical and digital consumer products, including software and applications. The Regulation also introduces concepts of digital safety, such as risks arising from connected devices or software updates, which were not addressed under previous legislation.

The GPSR imposes obligations on all economic operators throughout the consumer product supply chain, including manufacturers, EU importers, distributors, and fulfilment service providers. In addition, the Regulation separately imposes obligations on providers of online marketplaces. The Regulation contains a general safety requirement under which economic operators may only place, or make available, safe products on the market.

In November 2025, the European Commission published new GPSR Guidelines (C/2025/6233), which, together with the Safety Business Gateway portal, assist businesses in understanding and fulfilling their obligations under the GPSR.

Artificial Intelligence

In addition to product safety and product liability regulation, the regulatory environment has also been expanded to include entirely new legislation concerning AI.

On 13 June 2024, the EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, which came into force on 1 August 2024. The aim of this Regulation is to establish harmonised internal markets for AI within the EU and ensure that AI systems placed on the market or put into service do not endanger human safety, health, or fundamental rights. The regulatory framework focuses particularly on the harmful uses of AI, with the result that the most harmful AI practices are prohibited entirely, while so-called high-risk AI systems are subject to stricter requirements.

Although the EU Regulation is directly applicable law in Finland, as an EU member state, it nevertheless requires supplementary national legislation. In Finland, national legislative preparations began in 2024, and the national implementation of the “AI Act” was divided into two phases.

In the first phase, national provisions were enacted concerning those provisions of the AI Act that applied from 2 August 2025 onwards. The first phase legislation concerns, among other things, the responsibilities of national authorities and sanctions for breaches of the Regulation. As a result of this first phase, Finland enacted the Act on the Supervision of Certain AI Systems (1377/2025), which entered into force on 1 January 2026.

In the second phase, national provisions will be enacted concerning the implementation of those provisions of the Regulation that apply from 2 August 2026 onwards. EU member states are required, among other things, to establish at least one AI regulatory sandbox and a national register relating to high-risk AI systems connected to safety components of critical infrastructure. Finland is currently engaged in a legislative project concerning amendments to the Act on the Supervision of Certain AI Systems, with the amendments intended to enter into force no later than 2 August 2026.