Marketplace under the microscope: How the PLD redefines responsibility in E-Commerce

Expanded product liability in the digital economy

According to Recital 38 of the PLD, “online selling has grown consistently and steadily, creating new business models and new actors in the market, such as online platforms”. Thus, one of the main goals of the PLD is to significantly strengthen consumer protection – among other things, through broadening the circle of liable actors to reflect increasingly fragmented, cross border supply chains.

For the first time, providers of online marketplaces are expressly recognised as potential liability subjects. This marks a clear departure from the previous legal regime and places e commerce platforms more firmly within the product liability framework.

Verification deficiencies as a liability trigger

Under Article 8 PLD, platform providers may be held secondarily liable where the manufacturer, importer, authorised representative or fulfilment service provider cannot be identified. Liability is therefore closely linked to the platform’s ability to verify, document and disclose the relevant economic operators behind a product.

This is particularly relevant for platforms hosting large numbers of third party sellers—often operating from outside the EU. Where no EU based economic operator can be identified, platforms may effectively become the primary addressee of product liability claims, despite having had no involvement in manufacturing or design.

From a risk perspective, this creates a structural exposure: liability does not (only) arise from the platform’s conduct towards the product itself, but (also) from insufficient verification, documentation or responsiveness when identification is requested.

End of the “Quasi Manufacturer” safe harbour

Under the previous Product Liability Directive, platforms were generally liable only if they acted as “quasi manufacturers”, for example by branding products with their own name or trademark. Pure intermediaries were largely shielded from liability.

This limitation no longer applies. Even without branding or manufacturing activity, platforms may face liability where products are presented on the platform in a way that may lead consumers to assume a certain level of responsibility—and where verification processes fail to identify the responsible economic operator.

This shift was already foreshadowed by the CJEU. In its judgment of 19 December 2024 in Case C-157/23, the Court addressed the liability of a vehicle distribution company in Italy that had not itself placed its name, trademark or any other distinguishing mark on the product. The brand appearing on the vehicle had been affixed during the manufacturing process and coincided with the manufacturer’s name. The question referred was whether the mere fact that the manufacturer’s trademark also formed part of the distributor’s business name alone was sufficient to classify that distributor as a “person who presents himself as [the] producer” within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374. The Court held that consumer protection requires that “any person” who presents himself as the producer – by placing his name, trademark or other distinguishing mark on the product – must be held liable in the same way as the actual producer. It further confirmed, citing Keskimäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia (C 264/21, para. 32), that the liability of such a person is no different from that of the actual producer and that consumers may freely choose to claim full compensation from either, as their liability is joint and several (para. 44). The new PLD codifies and extends this consumer‑protective approach by substantially broadening the circle of liable economic operators: distributors may incur liability where they fail to ensure that the manufacturer can be identified, thereby significantly reducing the ambiguity that gave rise to disputes such as this one.

In addition, the PLD introduces extensive disclosure obligations and significantly eases the claimant’s burden of proof. The Directive establishes presumptions both of defectiveness and of the causal link between defect and damage, particularly in cases of non‑compliance with mandatory product safety requirements. These presumptions will, in practice, be extremely difficult to rebut for mere intermediaries or online platforms: only the actual manufacturer—which holds the complete technical dossier, production history, quality control records and design documentation of the product—is typically in a position to demonstrate that the product was not defective or that the defect did not cause the damage. A platform or distributor that lacks access to this information will find it very challenging to mount an effective defence, making robust information‑sharing arrangements with manufacturers not merely advisable but essential from a litigation‑readiness perspective.

Verification processes as the key compliance lever

Platform liability under the PLD is not automatic. A decisive safeguard exists: a platform provider is liable only if it fails to identify the responsible economic operator within one month upon request.

This makes verification and information management systems a central compliance issue. For marketplaces and sales platforms, key risk mitigation measures include:

• Comprehensive and up to date documentation of sellers, manufacturers and other supply chain actors
• Efficient internal processes to respond promptly to requests from authorities or claimants
• Contractual safeguards ensuring access to relevant product and manufacturer information

These measures are essential not only to prevent liability from arising, but also—given the new evidentiary rules—to enable effective self exoneration in litigation.

It is essential that platforms and distributors sourcing products from manufacturers outside the EU carry out a thorough review of their current contractual frameworks. Liability limitation clauses and indemnification provisions agreed with non-EU suppliers must be reassessed in light of the expanded liability regime, as many current arrangements will be insufficient to cover the new exposure. Equally important, these businesses will need to adapt their insurance programmes to account for the potential claims arising under the PLD—ensuring that their professional and product liability policies adequately reflect the risk of being treated as the liable party where the actual manufacturer cannot be identified or is beyond the reach of EU enforcement.

Implementation by the German legislator

Germany has already taken concrete steps towards implementation. A draft bill has been available since September 2025 and was introduced on February 25, 2026, as Bundestag document 21/4297. On 3 March 2026, the German Bundestag held the first reading of the draft legislation transposing the PLD into national law. The bill is currently going through the parliamentary legislative process and has therefore not yet been passed. While the German draft uses more concise wording with regard to the liability of online platform providers, it substantively mirrors the Directive’s approach.

Given the PLD’s full harmonisation character, significant national deviations are neither intended nor permissible. E commerce platforms should therefore expect a largely uniform liability regime across the EU once the Directive enters into force.

Takeaway for platforms and online retailers

The new Product Liability Directive places online marketplaces firmly under regulatory scrutiny. While platforms do not become default guarantors of product safety, their role within the liability system has changed fundamentally. Early compliance, transparent supply chain governance and robust documentation processes will be critical to managing the new risks.

Authored by Dr. Viktoria Riederer and Paloma Martinez.