The European Commission may well turn a deaf ear to calls from the previous European Parliament aimed at creating a legal personality for robots. The report, which it has commissioned from a group of experts and which is to be formally presented to the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs on Thursday 9 January, considers that such a provision is in fact unnecessary.
The objective of the group of experts was to examine whether current liability regimes “are appropriate to facilitate the adoption of new technologies by promoting the stability of investment and user confidence”. This group of experts is part of one of the two formations dealing with liability and new technologies, which were implemented in March 2019. The other formation, whose work should result in interpretative guidelines for Directive 85/374/EEC, focuses only on defective products.
No specific legal personality
In its report, the group of experts on ‘new technologies’ concludes that “the liability regimes in force in the Member States provide at least basic protection for victims of damage resulting from the operation of these new technologies”, but that “some adjustments may be necessary at national or European level”. In other words, experts do not recommend anything revolutionary, just some adjustments.
Thus, according to them, it is not necessary to create a specific legal personality for robots to ensure, as requested by the previous European Parliament in Mady Delvaux’s report, that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots can be considered as responsible electronic individuals, liable for compensating for any damage caused to a third party (see EUROPE 11727/9). “It is not necessary to confer legal personality on autonomous devices or systems, because the damage they can cause can and must be attributable to existing individuals or organisations”, the experts noted, as behind every robot there is a human (an algorithm necessarily reflects the designer's intention). They add that in the event that there are multiple operators, where there is a risk of splitting the liability, it is sufficient to find out who has the most control over the risk incurred to identify the person who is liable.
Other suggested adaptations
Among other adjustments, the experts suggest establishing a presumption of liability that works in favour of the victim. They also propose a reversal of the burden of proof, shifting it to the manufacturer. Furthermore, they suggest the establishment of a compensation fund, similar to the one which exists in the Directive regarding civil liability insurance regarding cars, which can be used to protect victims of offences who are entitled to compensation in accordance with the applicable liability rules, but whose claims cannot be accepted. Link to the report: http://bit.ly/2ZZWiLk (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)