Who Can Bring a Product Liability Claim?

EU Directive-level explanationUpdated 16 October 2026By ProductLiability.help editorial desk

The injured person need not be the buyer

Directive (EU) 2024/2853 requires Member States to ensure that a natural person who suffers damage caused by a defective product is entitled to compensation in accordance with the Directive. The protection is not expressed only as a right belonging to the purchaser. Someone using a product, living near it or otherwise affected by it can raise a product liability question even without a sales contract with the manufacturer.

That does not establish an individual entitlement merely because a person reports harm. Product scope, defectiveness, covered damage and causation remain necessary parts of the analysis. The product liability framework explains those connected questions. The identity of the injured person is one starting point, followed by an investigation into what happened and which legal framework governs the product and incident.

Natural persons and business entities

The Directive's compensation framework is directed at natural persons. A company claiming its own commercial losses should not be treated as though it is automatically an injured natural person under Article 5. Other contractual, tort or statutory routes may exist under applicable law, but they require their own analysis. The fact that a product is defective does not make every kind of claimant or loss fit this particular framework.

A person acting in a professional setting needs a more careful distinction. A worker's personal injury is not the same loss as damage to the employer's equipment or the employer's lost production. Likewise, a sole trader's property and data require attention to the different professional-use exclusions. Describe the claimant and each harm separately instead of classifying an entire event as either consumer or business damage.

Users, bystanders and household members

The product's relationship to a person can help establish the facts without supplying a universal legal shortcut. A household member may use an appliance purchased by another person. A visitor may be injured by a product they never touched. A neighbour's property may be affected by an alleged product-origin fire. In each situation, the investigation should identify the damage and explain the alleged causal mechanism.

Keep the purchase receipt if available because it can identify the model, seller, supply route and dates. Do not mistake it for the sole evidence of who can suffer compensable harm. Product labels, installation records, witness accounts and photographs can also establish the relevant history. Any disagreement about possession or use should be recorded rather than resolved by assuming the buyer and injured person must be identical.

Damage categories still limit the framework

Article 6 addresses death and personal injury, including medically recognised psychological harm, as well as specified property and data damage. The defective product itself is excluded from the property category. A further exclusion concerns damage to a product caused by a component integrated or interconnected by that product's manufacturer or within its control. Property used exclusively for professional purposes is also excluded.

Data destruction or corruption is covered only where the data are not used for professional purposes. These boundaries mean that two people affected by the same malfunction may present different legal questions. One may have a physical injury, another may have lost professional data and another may simply want a replacement device. The core proof requirements should be applied to each claimed harm, not to a combined description of the incident.

Someone acting on behalf of an injured person

Article 5 also addresses compensation claims by persons succeeding to or subrogated to the injured person's rights, and persons acting on behalf of injured persons under Union or national law. These are legally defined routes, not permission for anybody to claim another person's damages. Representation, succession and subrogation need the relevant legal basis and evidence of authority.

National procedure can determine who may act, how a representative action is brought and which documents establish authority. Where a death, insurer payment or collective claim is involved, those questions can be important. A general product liability explanation cannot identify the correct representative or determine the full effect of a payment or assignment in an individual matter. Preserve the underlying documents and distinguish their factual existence from their legal effect.

Identify who actually suffered each loss

Create a record that links each alleged harm to a person and supporting evidence. For property, record ownership and use. For data, record the nature of the data and whether professional use occurred. For injury, keep the account of the event separate from medical evidence and from technical conclusions about the product. This structure helps prevent the person reporting the complaint from being confused with every person who may have been affected.

Finally, verify jurisdiction, product dates and the relevant implementing legislation. The corrected Directive scope concerns products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026. National procedural rules and other regimes may be relevant. The fact that a person can raise a plausible investigation does not itself establish a successful claim, a compensation amount or a filing deadline.

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.

Identity of the person who suffered each category of harm
Product supply and possession history
Ownership and actual use of damaged property or data

Independent educational information at EU Directive level. National implementing law and procedure require separate review.

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.

Source register: corrected scope verified 16 October 2026. Article references identify the legal basis. No qualified legal review or national implementation status is claimed.