Defectiveness routes
Article 10(2) addresses failure to disclose relevant evidence, non-compliance with mandatory safety requirements intended to protect against the damage risk, and an obvious malfunction in reasonably foreseeable use or ordinary circumstances. The factual basis for the selected route should be stated precisely.
Causation and technical complexity
Article 10(3) concerns damage typically consistent with an established defect. Article 10(4) addresses excessive technical or scientific difficulty, despite disclosure, with the specified likelihood requirement. Neither the presence of AI nor a complex product automatically establishes those conditions.
Allow for rebuttal
Article 10(5) expressly allows rebuttal. A sound evidence analysis records alternative mechanisms, testing limitations and disputed assumptions. It also avoids treating a presumed element as a final finding of liability, particularly where damage, scope or an exemption remains in dispute.
Records that help the review
Use the following as a practical starting point. Select and preserve records appropriate to the product, incident and applicable procedure.
- Specific presumption and relevant paragraph
- Facts satisfying each condition
- Evidence of likelihood and technical difficulty
- Rebuttal evidence and alternative explanations
A presumption can address a particular element. It does not automatically establish a final right to compensation.
Primary sources and legal scope
This page explains the EU Directive framework. Check national implementing law, the corrected temporal scope and relevant procedure before applying it to a case.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2853, consolidated text: Articles 9, 10 ↗
- Official Journal corrigendum, 7 May 2026: Article 2(1) ↗
Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.