On Tuesday 28 January, while awaiting the final report from the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), MEPs on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) had a rather lively initial exchange of views regarding the draft directive “on the adaptation of non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence” (AI), known as the ‘AI Liability Directive’.
This directive aims to introduce a system of civil liability for damage caused by AI systems. It goes hand in hand with the amendments to the directive on liability for defective products (see EUROPE 13314/5), but aims to complete its gaps on the specific risks of AI.
According to the Commission, this directive would close legal “loopholes” in terms of legal proceedings, particularly where it is up to the injured consumer to prove causality between the damage and the AI’s action.
The directive also proposes to cover damage attributed to AI and affecting companies or organisations, in addition to damage to individuals.
Far from convincing MEPs, the Commission’s proposal drew heavy criticism from several political groups, starting with the Conservatives. The rapporteur for the European Parliament, Poland’s Kosma Złotowski (ECR), flatly announced his “rejection of the text” in the draft opinion.
“New legislation will be detrimental to business, so we must first look at the full impact of the product liability directive and avoid adding new legislation”, he said.
He was joined by Jorge Martín Frías (PfE, Spanish), who pointed to Europe’s “backwardness” in terms of innovation, blaming it on its propensity to “regulate”, as well as by Svenja Hahn (Renew Europe, German). The Liberal MEP even described the new directive as “profoundly unnecessary and even problematic”.
“I have met many stakeholders and many of them are saying that the proposal should be withdrawn, because there is no known case that would not be covered by the current legal regime”, she said.
On the other hand, the Social Democrats and the radical left openly supported the directive, in view of the extension of the scope of consumer rights concerning disputes and the need to regulate AI in view of its current expansion.
Present at the debate, the rapporteur for the JURI Committee, Axel Voss (EPP, German), defended the benefits of the directive, arguing that the text will harmonise European rules. In his view, such an approach does not “constitute an administrative problem” for companies. “We have 27 different liability laws in the Member States, so perhaps we could combine them all. I think we should approach this issue in a reasonable way, and if we are not able to create added value for businesses, consumers or Member States, we will consider dropping it”, he said pragmatically.
A first version of Mr Voss’ draft report is scheduled for 4 June, with votes in the JURI committee and then in plenary not expected before the early months of 2026. (Original version in French by Isalia Stieffatre)