EPRS BRI(2023)739342 EN · Table (p.5)
From EPRS_BRI(2023)739342_EN.pdf · page 5
| 0 | 1 |
|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence liability directive | |
| Principle and objectives | |
| The purpose of the AI liability directive is to improve the functioning of the internal market by laying | |
| down uniform requirements for non-contractual civil liability for damage caused with the | |
| involvement of AI systems. The overall objective of the proposal is to promote the rollout of | |
| trustworthy AI, to harvest its full benefits for the internal market by ensuring victims of damage | |
| caused by AI obtain equivalent protection to victims of damage caused by products in general.15 | |
| The proposal also aims to reduce legal uncertainty for businesses developing or using AI regarding | |
| their possible exposure to liability and prevent the emergence of fragmented AI-specific | |
| adaptations of national civil liability rules. The legal basis for the proposal is Article 114 TFEU, | |
| which provides for the adoption of measures to ensure the establishment and functioning of the | |
| internal market. The choice of a directive leaves the Member States some flexibility for their internal | |
| transposition of the legislation, as directly applicable rules would be too strict in relation to the | |
| scope of tortious liability, which is based on specific and long-established legal traditions in each | |
| Member State. 16 | |
| Scope | |
| The proposed AI liability directive seeks to harmonise non-contractual civil liability rules for | |
| damage caused by artificial intelligence (AI) systems (Article 1). The AI liability directive would | |
| not define AI, but refer to the same general concept of AI as in the AI act and particularly its definition | |
| of 'AI systems'. 17 The new rules would apply to damage caused by AI systems, irrespective of | |
| whether they are defined as high-risk or not under the AI act. 18 | |
| The AI liability directive concerns 'extra-contractual' civil | liability rules, i.e. rules providing a |
| compensation claim irrespective of a contractual link between the victim and the liable person.19 | |
| The rules would ensure that any type of victim (individuals or businesses) can be compensated if | |
| they are harmed by the fault or omission of a provider, developer or user of AI resulting in a damage | |
| covered by national law (e.g. health, property, privacy, etc.). | |
| The AI liability directive would not affect existing rules | |
| Figure 1 – Liability regimes in the EU | |
| laid down in other EU legislation, particularly the EU | |
| rules regulating conditions of liability in the field of | |
| transport, the proposed revision of the Product | |
| Liability Directive or the Digital Services Act. | |
| Furthermore, while the AI liability directive does not | |
| apply with respect to criminal liability, it may be | |
| applicable with respect to state liability given that state | |
| authorities are subject of the obligations in the AI act.20 | |
| PLD and AI liability directive. | |
| The revised PLD proposal aims to modernise the | |
| existing EU no-fault-based (strict) product liability | |
| regime and would apply to claims made by private | |
| individuals against the manufacturer for damage | |
| caused by defective products. | |
| In contrast, the new AI liability directive proposes a | |
| Source: European Commission, 2022. | |
| targeted reform of national fault-based liability | |
| regimes and would apply to claims, made by any | |
| natural or legal person against any person, for fault influencing the AI system that caused the | |
| damage. |
Source Metadata