1. What Is the Current Legal Landscape for Product Liability in Your Jurisdiction?

The EU Member States’ product liability framework stands at a pivotal moment, shaped by the coexistence of a long established strict liability regime and a sweeping modernisation of European law. France and the other EU Member States will have to adjust in the coming months to a new reinforced pro-plaintiffs’ legal framework.

Up until now, the relevant piece of legislation was the 1985 Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC). France has codified it in Articles 1245 to 1245 17 of the French Civil Code. These provisions establish a strict liability regime for defective products: once a claimant proves defect, damage, and causal link, liability arises regardless of any fault or negligence. The other EU Member States do hold a similar regime. Although the 1985 Directive was repealed in October 2024, it continues to govern all products placed on the EU market before 9 December 2026.

A major shift comes with the New Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 (“New PLD”), which Member States must implement by 9 December 2026. The first purpose of this Directive is said to harmonize EU product liability by expressly including software, AI systems, digital manufacturing files, and digital related services within the definition of “product.” It however goes much further than this. The new PLD broadens compensable damage (e.g., psychological harm, non professional data loss), creates new presumptions of defect and causation, and introduces a ground breaking EU style discovery mechanism requiring manufacturers to disclose relevant evidence.

This new revamped liability system is complemented by the General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988 (GPSR), applicable since 13 December 2024. The GPSR reinforces and updates the EU’s general safety obligation for consumer products and has already reshaped the French Consumer Code accordingly. It now constitutes the backbone of day to day product safety compliance across France and the wider EU, establishing comprehensive obligations relating to risk assessment, traceability, corrective measures, and online marketplace responsibilities.

Within this broader European framework, France also maintains several additional legal avenues—including tort liability, liability based on custody of a thing, contractual claims, statutory warranties, and even criminal liability in serious cases. These regimes operate in parallel to the strict product liability system and provide complementary tools for claimants depending on the circumstances of the case.

Their coexistence contributes to a multifaceted and layered legal environment, with product related harm that can be addressed under multiple theories of liability, and reinforcing the overall pro consumer direction of both French and EU product law. To summarize, the current and upcoming legal landscapes in product liability in France and in the EU will become very challenging for companies, which exposure will be higher than it already is. While not wanting to become like the United States, one cannot deny that we are moving towards that direction, with higher burden on companies, higher costs and exposure. The opportunity and timing of cross-Atlantic claims will become part of the strategy. While, to date, claims were generally first filed in the United States and then in Europe, it may become the opposite with the New PLD.

2. What Three Essential Pieces of Advice Would You Give to Clients Involved in Product Liability Matters?

First, businesses should invest in robust, end to end product documentation and compliance systems, covering technical design, risk analysis, conformity assessments, quality control, cybersecurity measures, update processes, AI governance, and lifecycle traceability. Under both current French and European rules and the New PLD, detailed documentation is indispensable to rebutting defect allegations and responding effectively to expanded evidentiary obligations.

Second, companies must prepare for increased litigation exposure. French courts already tend to shift evidentiary burdens toward manufacturers, and the New PLD explicitly facilitates this shift through new presumptions—particularly where scientific complexity makes proof difficult. Manufacturers will be required to disclose relevant evidence, and non disclosure will itself create a presumption of defectiveness. Businesses should therefore maintain litigation ready technical files and prepare internal protocols for managing expert investigations and disclosure demands.

Third, companies should integrate emerging regulatory domains—AI, cybersecurity, environmental sustainability, reparability/durability standards, PFAS restrictions—into core product risk management. These evolving obligations increasingly influence how courts assess product safety expectations, how authorities conduct surveillance, and how claimants frame their allegations. This is true for the whole lifecycle of a product. These evolving obligations will also open the door to numerous new plaintiffs: the ones who are not physically harmed, i.e. the ones who are anxious / psychologically distressed.

3. What Are the Greatest Threats and Opportunities in Product Liability Law Over the Next 12 Months?

The European product liability landscape is entering a period of profound transition, and with it comes a series of threats that businesses cannot afford to overlook. One of the most immediate challenges arises from the coexistence of two parallel regimes. Products placed on the market before 9 December 2026 will remain governed by the 1985 Directive, while those introduced afterward will fall under the New Product Liability Directive (PLD). For companies with long lifecycle goods or with legacy models still circulating alongside updated versions, this split regime brings significant compliance and litigation complexity. Determining which framework applies will turn on the precise date a product was first made available, requiring meticulous documentation and rigorous internal controls.

At the same time, the New PLD dramatically widens the liability net. By expanding the concept of a “product” to include software, AI systems, digital manufacturing files, raw materials, and a range of digital services, the Directive draws into scope actors who were never previously exposed—software developers, AI model creators, firmware designers, and digital service providers. It also extends potential liability to businesses that make substantial modifications to existing products or rebrand them as their own, aftermarket operators, and online marketplaces under much closer scrutiny.

Claimants, meanwhile, will soon be equipped with more powerful procedural tools. The new regime introduces presumptions of defect and causation where technical or scientific complexity creates evidentiary barriers, lowering the threshold for initiating and sustaining claims. Equally transformative is the EU style disclosure mechanism, which empowers courts to compel manufacturers to produce internal documents, technical records, and safety files. This shift in procedural dynamics is likely to alter the litigation balance, especially in cases involving algorithmic behaviour, data corruption, or software driven product failures.

Alongside these changes, enforcement under the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR) is escalating rapidly. Authorities across the EU are moving away from a reactive model, adopting instead a preventive, risk based supervisory approach. Their scrutiny increasingly targets the quality of technical documentation, the robustness of risk assessments, compliance of online marketplaces, traceability throughout the supply chain, the designation of an EU based Responsible Person, and cybersecurity related product safety risks. The GPSR now allows regulators to order the removal of online product listings within as little as two working days—a response window that leaves little room for error and exposes businesses to both regulatory penalties and immediate litigation.

The litigation funding market is also reshaping the risk landscape. Funders are backing mass harm claims and complex cross border proceedings, enabling cases that would previously have been economically unviable. This trend not only increases the likelihood of large scale, multi jurisdictional disputes but also raises the financial exposure for manufacturers facing coordinated legal action across different Member States.

Environmental and sustainability related obligations add another layer of vulnerability. The EU’s agenda on product durability, reparability, environmental impact, PFAS restrictions, and circular economy requirements is becoming a fertile ground for claims. Allegations may stem from misleading environmental assertions, inadequate consumer information, or safety issues linked to recycled or repurposed components. As circular economy practices expand, so too do questions about liability for refurbished goods, shared responsibility across supply chains, and the adequacy of compliance systems designed for traditional manufacturing models.

Finally, AI driven litigation is accelerating. Courts are increasingly receptive to characterising AI systems—including generative models, chatbots, and automated decision tools—as “products” capable of triggering strict liability. This trend exposes a broad range of actors—designers, upstream model providers, integrators, and platforms—to claims not only for defective functionality but also for emotional harm, insufficient guardrails, biased algorithmic behaviour, or inadequate user warnings. The shift signals a decisive move toward treating AI not as a service but as a marketable, safety critical product.

Yet amid these mounting threats, the emerging landscape also offers opportunities for businesses that move swiftly.

Companies that invest in advanced compliance systems, align early with the New PLD’s requirements, and embed comprehensive AI governance structures will be well positioned to navigate regulatory expectations with confidence. Such organisations are likely to gain the trust of regulators, commercial partners, and consumers, distinguishing themselves as responsible market leaders.

The new framework also brings long needed clarity to the liability treatment of software, data driven components, and digital services. This enables businesses to harmonise risk assessment and compliance protocols across all EU markets, reducing uncertainty and facilitating more efficient product development cycles. The modernised rules on refurbished, remanufactured, and substantially modified products provide clearer operational guidance and support innovation in sustainable product strategies. As liability risk evolves, insurers are updating coverage models to address software and data related exposures, offering sophisticated companies an opportunity to secure more relevant and protective policies.

Finally, as regulators sharpen their focus on AI generated content, automated interactions, and algorithmic decision making, organisations with transparent, well documented, and safety driven AI processes will enjoy a distinct advantage. Not only will they mitigate litigation risk, but they will also cultivate stronger consumer confidence and regulatory goodwill as the EU’s digital fairness obligations take effect.

4. How Do You Ensure High Client Satisfaction Levels Are Maintained by Your Practice?

Client satisfaction in product liability mandates a combination of technical knowledge, strategic clarity (taking into account global litigation risks), and proactive insight.

Our practice ensures high satisfaction by providing:

• Continuous regulatory monitoring, including New PLD developments, GPSR enforcement, AI Act implementation, environmental product rules, and case law.
• Precise, business oriented advice that translates complex legal frameworks into operational decisions for R&D teams, safety managers, compliance officers, and executives.
• Rapid response capabilities for incidents, recalls, expert proceedings, and market surveillance investigations.
• Strategic litigation planning, including cross border coordination, technical expert engagement, evidence preservation, and robust rebuttal strategies tailored to the increasingly claimant friendly burden of proof environment.

This multidisciplinary, forward looking approach ensures that clients remain confident, well informed, and protected throughout the product life cycle and litigation process.

Planning is essential. Ensuring that the plan fits the specific situation is even more important. We often say at first that “it is urgent not to do anything”. Indeed, the fact-finding exercise and clear understanding of the crisis are key to ensure that wrong decisions are not taken from the outset, as these early decisions will set the scene for the rest of the case.

5. What Technological Advancements Are Reshaping Product Liability Law, and How Can Clients Benefit From Them?

Technological change is not merely influencing product liability—it is redefining it.

The EU’s new framework now acknowledges that contemporary products are no longer defined solely by their physical characteristics but by the digital systems, data flows, and interconnected functionalities that underpin them. The New PLD marks a decisive shift in this regard, expressly treating software, digital manufacturing files, AI systems, cloud based components, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities as integral elements of a “product.” As a consequence, the potential sources of defect have multiplied. A malfunction may arise not just from a component that breaks or wears down, but from algorithmic behaviour that evolves unpredictably, from an update that alters performance, from an unaddressed security flaw, or even from corrupted digital instructions embedded deep within a product’s architecture.

This expansion of what constitutes a product simultaneously raises expectations around how it must be designed, monitored, and maintained. Products that continue to learn, adapt, or update after being placed on the market impose an ongoing duty on manufacturers to ensure that these processes remain safe, secure, and foreseeable. In practice, this means that cybersecurity governance, update management, incident logging, and AI validation processes are no longer operational luxuries—they are integral to demonstrating compliance with safety obligations and, in the event of litigation, to disproving allegations of defectiveness.

Yet the same technologies that heighten legal exposure are also reshaping the compliance landscape in profoundly positive ways. Breakthroughs in AI driven risk management now allow companies to detect anomalies in product behaviour almost instantly. Automated testing tools, digital twin environments, and predictive analytics can identify potential hazards long before they manifest in the real world. Connected devices can feed live data streams into monitoring systems that flag irregularities and trigger rapid intervention. Such tools not only reduce the likelihood of incidents but create invaluable digital evidence that can later demonstrate diligence and due care.

These developments extend beyond safety and into the growing domain of sustainability. Digital product passports, repairability and durability indices, and advanced environmental tracking systems equip manufacturers with transparent, verifiable data on the lifecycle of their products. This transparency allows companies to meet the expanding set of environmental and circular economy obligations while reinforcing consumer trust. It also offers a measure of protection against claims alleging misleading environmental performance or failures in sustainable design, since businesses can point to documented, data driven compliance efforts.

Taken together, these technological advancements reflect a dual reality for manufacturers and distributors. On the one hand, the digitalisation of products introduces new vectors for liability, increases scrutiny of post market behaviour, and places complex systems—once considered outside the reach of strict liability—squarely within its scope. On the other, technology offers powerful tools to mitigate those very risks: tools that improve product quality, strengthen regulatory compliance, support real time oversight, and create defensible evidentiary trails.

The companies that thrive under this modernised regime will be those that view technology not merely as a potential source of liability but as a strategic compliance asset. By embedding sophisticated monitoring, documentation, and governance systems into their product lifecycle, businesses can not only reduce their exposure but also differentiate themselves as trustworthy actors in an increasingly regulated and technologically complex marketplace.