New rules, new players: Who’s next in the EU’s product‑liability shake‑up?

Even though Member States have until 9 December 2026 to transpose it into national law, EU PLD undeniably represents one of the cornerstone of the EU lawmakers' effort to modernise its product‑liability framework and keep pace with an industry and supply chains that keeps evolving at unprecedented speed.

The purpose of the Directive is to enhance consumer protection, first and foremost by strengthening EU consumers' right to compensation. While this goal is firstly pursued by expanding the concept of “product” to keep pace with new consumer products, increasingly more intertwined with tech and digital components that simply didn't exist when EU consumer law first took shape, the Directive also broadens the concept of the party liable for defective products to ensure consumers enjoy more effective compensation rights, allowing them to seek redress from a broader range of economic players in order to recover their losses.

Accordingly, although the manufacturer of the defective product continues to play a central role in the framework, Article 8 of the Directive brings a broader set of economic operators into the frame. More specifically, the list of potentially liable entities now includes: (i) the manufacturer of the product; (ii) the manufacturer of a defective component; (iii) the importer of a product manufactured outside the EU; (iv) the authorised representative of the manufacturer; (v) the provider of logistics services; and (vi) the distributor.

The new EU PLD however preserves a subsidiarity‑based approach in allocating liability among the said economic operators. For instance, the Directive provides that the distributor will only be liable when the injured person requests the distributor to identify an economic operator from among those referred to in particle 8.1. and established in the Union, or their own distributor who supplied them with the product. This means that having strong oversight and clean, reliable supply‑chain traceability will become even more essential under the revamped rules. Along the same lines, a fulfilment service provider may be deemed liable only if no importer established within the EU or authorised representative is identified.

Additionally, to reflect the growing relevance of e-commerce in the distribution of consumer products, the EU PLD establishes that any provider of an online platform that enables consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders – and who is not itself an economic operator falling within the EU PLD's scope – shall also be considered liable unless it identifies a responsible economic operator established in the EU. The provision is meant to complete the liability framework already set out in Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (the so-called “Digital Services Act”).

In this regard as well, the implementation of robust, forward‑looking risk‑mitigation strategies will be of paramount importance, as the manner in which an online platform engages with consumers will ultimately determine whether it incurs liability or benefits from an exemption. In fact, Recital 38 of the EU PLD clarifies that when online platforms play a mere “intermediary role” in the sale of products between traders and consumers, they are exempt from liability. However, online platforms providers will not be exempt when they lead the average consumer to believe that the product is supplied by the online platform itself or by a trader acting under its authority or control.

Overall, the purpose of these subsidiary and joint‑liability mechanisms among the various economic operators involved throughout the supply chain is intended to ensure that consumers can always enforce their rights against at least one accountable party, without the increasing complexity of global supply chains making it unduly challenging to identify someone who can be held to account. This implies that consumers may act against any natural or legal person who presents itself as a manufacturer by using any distinctive element on the product that gives the consumer the impression that it participated in the production process or is responsible for it, as explicitly clarified in Recital 36 of the EU PLD.

As a matter of fact, this approach also fully aligns with recent case‑law by the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreting the pre-existing product liability legal framework. In a ruling rendered on 19 December 2024 (Case C‑157/23), the Court indeed clarified that a supplier of a product must be considered as “presenting itself as a producer”, and therefore liable, when the name of that supplier or one of its distinctive elements coincides with the name of the manufacturer and/or with the name, brand, or further distinctive sign that the manufacturer has placed on the product. The key point is that the supplier benefits from the coincidence between the indication on the product and its own corporate name, thereby presenting itself to the consumer as responsible for the product's quality and generating a level of consumer confidence comparable to that which would exist if the product were sold directly by the actual producer. On these bases, the Court found the official distributor of a defective product liable although the distributor did not by itself physically place its name, brand, or any other distinctive sign on the product, as the brand was applied during the manufacturing stage.

Ultimately, EU policymakers and EU judges seem aligned in pursuing the same goal, albeit through different yet complementary routes. Both the case law and the new Directive aim to extend consumer protection by ensuring that compensation can be sought against a wider range of liable economic operators, be it the manufacturer of finished products or components, economic operators involved in the distribution process, providers of e‑commerce platforms or other parties who may induce legitimate trust in the consumers by presenting themselves as manufacturers.

Authored by Paloma Martinez and Pietro Orlandi.