EU Parliament Publishes Study on Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability

The study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Justice, Civil Liberties and Institutional Affairs reviews the EU’s developing framework for civil liability related to AI. It argues that current national approaches risk fragmentation, uncertainty, and uneven protection across Member States. To address this, it proposes an EU-wide strict liability regime focused on high-risk AI systems, ensuring victims can obtain compensation without having to prove fault, supported by clear allocation of responsibility to a single operator.

Central to the proposal is harmonization: a uniform definition of high-risk systems, a single responsible operator per system (with clear criteria for who that is across the AI lifecycle), mandatory insurance or equivalent financial security, and standardized defenses and caps where appropriate. The study emphasizes legal certainty and efficiency—reducing litigation costs, speeding redress, and preventing forum shopping—while aligning with the AI Act’s risk-based approach and complementing product safety and product liability rules.

The report also highlights practical implementation elements: interoperability with existing EU instruments (Product Liability Directive, General Product Safety Regulation), clear evidentiary rules and disclosure duties to address information asymmetries, and safeguards to maintain innovation. It suggests limiting strict liability to well-defined high-risk categories, applying fault-based liability elsewhere, and creating monitoring and review mechanisms to recalibrate scope as AI technologies evolve.

Key takeaways

• Fragmentation risk: Divergent national liability rules threaten legal certainty and equal protection across the EU.
• Strict liability for high-risk AI: Victims should not need to prove fault where systems pose significant risks.
• Single responsible operator: Assign one clear operator per system to avoid diffuse responsibility across complex AI value chains.
• Harmonized scope and defenses: EU-wide definitions of high-risk uses, standardized defenses, and proportionate liability caps.
• Insurance/financial security: Mandatory coverage to guarantee victim compensation and spread risk efficiently.
• Evidence and disclosure: Procedural tools to address information asymmetry, including duty to preserve and disclose logs.
• Alignment with AI Act: Liability regime should mirror the AI Act’s risk-based design and complement product liability law.
• Innovation balance: Strict liability confined to defined high-risk uses; fault-based standards for others to avoid over-deterrence.
• Cross-border consistency: Prevent forum shopping and reduce litigation costs through uniform rules.
• Dynamic review: Mechanisms to update high-risk classifications as technology and market practices change.