The Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve in Ger­man law

Main fea­tures of the plan­ned revi­si­on of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act

On 11 Sep­tem­ber, the BMJV published a draft bill to moder­ni­se pro­duct lia­bi­li­ty law (ProdHaftG‑E). The exis­ting Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act (Prod­HaftG), which imple­ments Direc­ti­ve 85/374/EEC, is to be repea­led and repla­ced by a new law of the same name. The back­ground to this is Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2024/2853, which must be trans­po­sed into Mem­ber Sta­te law by 9 Decem­ber 2026.

Struc­tu­re of the draft bill

The new law will increase the amount of text by around 50%. Part 1 regu­la­tes the lia­bi­li­ty of the manu­fac­tu­rer (Sec­tions 1–9 ProdHaftG‑E), Part 2 regu­la­tes the lia­bi­li­ty of other par­ties (importers, repre­sen­ta­ti­ves, ful­film­ent ser­vice pro­vi­ders, sup­pli­ers, online plat­forms, Sec­tions 10–13 ProdHaftG‑E) . Part 3 con­ta­ins pro­vi­si­ons on claims for dama­ges (Sec­tions 14–18 ProdHaftG‑E) and Part 4 on the law of evi­dence (Sec­tions 19, 20 ProdHaftG‑E). Part 5 (Final Pro­vi­si­ons) distin­gu­is­hes bet­ween other lia­bi­li­ty regu­la­ti­ons, sti­pu­la­tes the dis­clo­sure requi­re­ment for jud­ge­ments and decis­i­ons, and pro­vi­des for a tran­si­ti­on peri­od for the appli­ca­ti­on of the law (Sec­tions 21–23 ProdHaftG‑E).

Lia­bi­li­ty

The lia­ble par­ty is pri­ma­ri­ly the manu­fac­tu­rer, legal­ly defi­ned as the par­ty who deve­lo­ps or manu­fac­tures a pro­duct them­sel­ves – or has it desi­gned or manu­fac­tu­red, Sec­tion 3 ProdHaftG‑E. Equal­ly respon­si­ble is the quasi-manufacturer, who mere­ly affi­xes their name, brand or other distin­gu­is­hing mark to the pro­duct and acts as the manu­fac­tu­rer. Final­ly, anyo­ne who signi­fi­cant­ly modi­fies a pro­duct wit­hout the manu­fac­tu­rer’s con­sent and places it on the mar­ket or puts it into ser­vice is also con­side­red a manu­fac­tu­rer (Sec­tion 5 ProdHaftG‑E).

The pro­duct that must be defec­ti­ve can initi­al­ly be any mova­ble item, inclu­ding raw mate­ri­als. The Direc­ti­ve cites the raw mate­ri­als ‘gas and water’ as examp­les (Reci­tal 16 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Direc­ti­ve). Intan­gi­ble items also include elec­tri­ci­ty and, for the first time in future, soft­ware (with the excep­ti­on of free open-source soft­ware) and digi­tal design documents.

The basis for lia­bi­li­ty is a defect in one of the­se pro­ducts that cau­ses dama­ge to a per­son’s body or health, other per­so­nal pro­per­ty (exclu­ding the defec­ti­ve pro­duct its­elf) or per­so­nal data.

The manu­fac­tu­rer must have put the pro­duct into cir­cu­la­ti­on (Sec­tion 9(1) No. 1 ProdHaftG‑E). Becau­se pla­cing on the mar­ket is lin­ked to the ter­ri­to­ry of the Euro­pean Uni­on, the legis­la­tor wis­hes to cover cases in which the pro­duct has been pla­ced on the mar­ket out­side this ter­ri­to­ry and sub­se­quent­ly impor­ted. Alt­hough this would not be neces­sa­ry, it does not extend the scope of appli­ca­ti­on, but mere­ly cla­ri­fies the situation.

Defect

A pro­duct is defec­ti­ve if it does not offer the safe­ty requi­red by law or expec­ted. For the assess­ment, Sec­tion 7 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act (Prod­HaftG) con­ta­ins seven dif­fe­rent cri­te­ria, which are not exhaus­ti­ve. The­se include self-learning func­tions (in par­ti­cu­lar AI sys­tems, machi­ne lear­ning), cyber secu­ri­ty requi­re­ments, pro­duct recalls and the ques­ti­on of whe­ther the pur­po­se of the pro­duct is pre­cis­e­ly to pre­vent damage.

Time of defect

The decisi­ve fac­tor is gene­ral­ly the date on which the pro­duct was pla­ced on the mar­ket or put into ser­vice. Howe­ver, the Direc­ti­ve con­ta­ins pro­vi­si­ons that also rela­te to con­duct after the­se dates. If the manu­fac­tu­rer still has con­trol over the pro­duct, lia­bi­li­ty only ends when this con­trol is relin­quis­hed. Con­trol exists, for exam­p­le, if the manu­fac­tu­rer installs or can install soft­ware updates (Sec­tion 8(2) ProdHaftG‑E).

Lia­bi­li­ty of other eco­no­mic operators

If the manu­fac­tu­rer is not based in the EU, the importer and the aut­ho­ri­sed repre­sen­ta­ti­ve are lia­ble. If neither of the­se exist, the ful­film­ent ser­vice pro­vi­der is lia­ble. If this does not exist eit­her, each sup­pli­er (dis­tri­bu­tor) is lia­ble if they fail to com­ply with the clai­man­t’s request to iden­ti­fy one of the afo­re­men­tio­ned par­ties. Under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons, if no actu­al actor is based in the EU, the pro­vi­der of an online plat­form may also be liable.

Dama­ges

The cla­im for dama­ges is not limi­t­ed in amount. In the event of dama­ge to data, the neces­sa­ry amount of money may be deman­ded imme­dia­te­ly ins­tead of res­to­ra­ti­on. If seve­ral par­ties are respon­si­ble for the dama­ge, they are joint­ly and seve­r­al­ly liable.

The cla­im expi­res three years after the date on which the cre­di­tor beca­me awa­re or should have beco­me awa­re of the defect in the pro­duct, the dama­ge and the iden­ti­ty of the deb­tor. The peri­od the­r­e­fo­re does not begin at the end of the year.

Accor­ding to Sec­tion 17 of the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act (ProdHaftG‑E), claims for dama­ges expi­re ten years after the pro­duct was pla­ced on the mar­ket or put into ser­vice, unless pro­cee­dings against the deb­tor have alre­a­dy been initia­ted. The ten-year peri­od beg­ins anew with each signi­fi­cant chan­ge to the pro­duct. If phy­si­cal inju­ry or dama­ge to health only beco­mes appa­rent gra­du­al­ly (laten­cy peri­od), the peri­od is 25 years.

Both the clai­mant and the defen­dant may, under the con­di­ti­ons set out in Sec­tion 19 of the ProdHaftG‑E, app­ly to the court for the dis­clo­sure of evi­dence by the other par­ty. The pre­re­qui­si­te is that plau­si­ble argu­ments have been pre­sen­ted based on facts and evi­dence. For the plain­ti­ff, this means that he must con­clu­si­ve­ly demons­tra­te the requi­re­ments for his cla­im and why, based on con­cre­te evi­dence, the­re is a cer­tain pro­ba­bi­li­ty that he is also entit­led to dama­ges. The defen­dant must then dis­c­lo­se any evi­dence in his pos­ses­si­on that is rele­vant to the pro­cee­dings. This may also mean that docu­ments must first be crea­ted from exis­ting information.

It is pos­si­ble to refu­se to com­ply with a court order to dis­c­lo­se evi­dence. Howe­ver, in accordance with Sec­tion 20(1)(1) of the ProdHaftG‑E, the pro­duct will then be pre­su­med to be defective.

The pro­duct will also be pre­su­med to be defec­ti­ve if the clai­mant pro­ves a vio­la­ti­on of Ger­man or Euro­pean pro­duct safe­ty law that should have pro­tec­ted against the inju­ry that occurred.

Publi­ca­ti­on of judgments and decisions

For the first time in Ger­man law, a dis­clo­sure requi­re­ment for court decis­i­ons has been estab­lished. Final decis­i­ons and jud­ge­ments in pro­cee­dings con­cer­ning claims under the Pro­duct Lia­bi­li­ty Act (Prod­HaftG) by appeal, revi­si­on, com­plaint and legal appeal courts must be published in elec­tro­nic form (anony­mi­sed or pseudonymised).

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.