The topic library
A connected view
of product responsibility.
Browse the questions, evidence and relationships that shape a product-risk investigation.
Showing 16 to 30 of 142 topic guides
Authorised Representative Liability
An authorised representative is Union-established and holds a written manufacturer mandate. Article 8 addresses this role where the manufacturer is established outside the EU.
Read guide17 / Economic operators and responsibilityFulfilment Service Provider Liability
Fulfilment liability requires both a defined services role and the Article 8 fallback conditions. Warehousing or delivery alone does not automatically establish responsibility.
Read guide18 / Economic operators and responsibilityDistributor Liability and Supplier Identification
Distributor liability under Article 8 depends on missing operator identification, a qualifying request and failure to identify within one month of receipt.
Read guide19 / Economic operators and responsibilityWho Can Be Liable for a Defective Product?
Manufacturer, component and EU market roles have different liability conditions. Map the legal entities and product history before assessing responsibility.
Read guide20 / Changes & responsibilitySubstantial modification of products
A person who substantially modifies a product outside manufacturer control and then makes it available or puts it into service can be treated as its manufacturer under Article 8(2).
Read guide21 / Circular productsRefurbished and remanufactured products
Refurbishment does not automatically make a business a new manufacturer for product-liability purposes. The actual changes, applicable safety rules and manufacturer-control conditions need examination.
Read guide22 / Evidence & proofEvidence in product-liability investigations
Useful evidence links the product and its state to the alleged defect, the damage and the responsible actor. Preservation and explanation matter as much as collecting a large quantity of files.
Read guide23 / Court processesDisclosure of evidence
Article 9 provides mechanisms for disclosure of relevant evidence subject to conditions. It is not an unrestricted right to every internal record or a general pre-trial disclosure code.
Read guide24 / Claims & proofBurden of proof
Article 10(1) requires the claimant to prove defectiveness, damage and the causal link. The Directive also provides conditional presumptions that can assist with specified elements.
Read guide25 / Evidence mechanismsRebuttable presumptions
The new Directive uses presumptions to address particular evidential problems. Defectiveness and causation are separate issues, and the relevant presumptions are conditional and rebuttable.
Read guide26 / Failure to harmCausation in product liability
Causation connects the alleged defect to the damage. A product being present at an incident, or failing shortly before it, does not by itself explain that connection.
Read guide27 / Covered harmDamage and compensation
Article 6 defines the damage categories covered by the new Directive. The right to compensation does not extend to every product-related loss, and other legal regimes may cover different losses.
Read guide28 / Digital damageData destruction and corruption
The Directive covers destruction or corruption of data not used for professional purposes. This is a distinct category from a privacy breach, loss of confidentiality or every software-related financial loss.
Read guide29 / Time limitsLimitation and expiry periods
Articles 16 and 17 address different clocks. Limitation concerns the time for bringing a claim after specified awareness; expiry concerns the period linked to market placement or service.
Read guide30 / Country layerNational implementation and jurisdiction
The Directive must be transposed through Member State law. Directive-level rules, an implementing act and the national procedural framework need to be kept separate.
Read guideNo topics match. Try a broader term or choose all areas.