23 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas any future-orientated liability framework has to instil confidence in the safety, reliability and consistency of products and services, including digital technology, in order to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of harm or damage and at the same time, providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies, products or services possible, especially in the artificial intelligence sector; whereas ultimately, the goal of any liability framework should be to provide consumer protection and legal certainty for all parties, whether it be the producer, the deployer, the affected person or any other third party;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas Artificial Intelligence (AI)- systems present significant legal challenges for the existing liability framework and could lead to situations, in which their opacity could make it extremely expensive or even impossible to identify who was in control of the risk associated with the AI- system or which code or input has ultimately caused the harmful operation; whereas these factors could make it harder to identify the relationship between injury and the behaviour causing it, with the result that victims might not receive adequate compensation;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas sound ethical standards for AI-systems combined with solid and fair compensation procedures can help to address those legal challenges and eliminate the risk of users being less willing to accept emerging technology; whereas fair liability procedures means that each person who suffers harm caused by AI-systems or whose property damage is caused by AI- systems should have the same level of protection compared to cases without involvement of an AI-system.
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas civil liability standards for artificial intelligence must seek to strike a balance between the protection of the public and business incentives to invest in innovation, especially AI systems;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the challenge related to the introduction of AI-systems into society and the economy is one of the most important questions on the current political agenda, in addition to bolstering the single market in goods and services and providing better safeguards to guarantee risk minimisation and provide adequate compensation for damages sustained; whereas technologies based on A I could improve our lives in almost every sector, from the personal sphere (e.g. personalised education, fitness programs) to global challenges (e.g. climate change, hunger and starvation);
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Firmly believes that in order to efficiently exploit the advantages and prevent potential misuses and avoid regulatory fragmentation in the Union, principle-based and future-proof legislation across the EU for all AI-systems is crucial; is of the opinion that, while sector specific regulations for the broad range of possible applications are preferable, a horizontal and harmonised legal framework based on common principles seems necessary to establish equal standards across the Union and effectively protect our European values;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. States that the Digital Single Market needs to be fully harmonized and constantly updated since the digital sphere is characterized by rapid cross-border dynamics and international data flows; considers that the Union will only achieve the objectives of maintaining EU’s digital sovereignty and of boosting digital innovation made in Europe with consistent and common rules in line with a culture of innovation;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Takes the view that artificial intelligence will create unprecedented opportunities and advantages for society and that the objective of EU decision makers should be to make Europe a world leader in AI; highlights the need in this regard to establish a clear, predictable legal framework that meets technological challenges effectively without hampering innovation;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers that, in the global context of digitalisation and emerging digital technologies, international cooperation for the purpose of standardisation is particularly relevant to the competitiveness of European businesses;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that there is no need for a complete revision of the well-functioning liability regimes but that the complexity, connectivity, opacity, vulnerability and autonomy of AI-systems nevertheless represent a significant challenge to the effectiveness of national and Union liability framework provisions; considers that specific and coordinated adjustments are necessary to avoid a situation in which persons who suffer harm or whose property is damaged end up without compensation;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the Product Liability Directive (PLD) has proven to be an effective means of getting compensation for harm triggered by a defective product; hence, notes that it should also be used with regard to civil liability claims against the producer of a defective AI-system, when the AI-system qualifies as a product under that Directive; if legislative adjustments to the PLD are necessary, they should be discussed during a review of that Directive, taking account of new civil liability standards for AI systems; is of the opinion that, for the purpose of legal certainty throughout the Union, the ‘backend operator’ should fall under the same liability rules as the producer, manufacturer and developer;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
(10.) Opines that liability rules involving the deployer should in principle cover all operations of AI-systems, no matter where the operation takes place and whether it happens physically or virtually; remarks that operations in public spaces that expose many third persons to a risk constitute, however, cases that require further consideration, especially where those possibly affected would not normally have a contractual relationship with the operator; considers that the potential victims of harm or damage are often not aware of the operation and regularly do not have contractual liability claims against the deployer; notes that when harm or damage materialises, such third persons would then only have a fault-liability claim, and they might find it difficult to prove the fault of the deployer of the AI-system;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that there could be situations in which there is more than one deployer; considers that in that event, all deployers should be jointly and severally liable while having the right to recourse proportionally against each other in line with the level of operational risk control;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recognises that the type of AI- system the deployer is exercising control over is a determining factor regarding liability; notes that an AI-system that entails a high inherent risk potentially endangers the general public to a much higher degree; considers that, based on the legal challenges that AI-systems pose to the existing liability regimes, it seems reasonable to set up a strict liability regime for those high-risk AI-systems;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that all high-risk AI- systems be exhaustively listed in an Annex to the proposed Regulation; recognises that, given the rapid technological change and the required technical expertise, it should be up to the Commission to review that Annex every six months and if necessary, amend it through a delegated act; believes that the Commission should closely cooperate with a newly formed standing committee similar to the existing Standing Committee on Precursors or the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles, which include national experts of the Member States and stakeholders; considers that the balanced membership of the ‘High- Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence’ could serve as an example for the formation of the group of stakeholders; is also of the opinion that the European Parliament should appoint consultative experts to advise the newly established standing committee.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Determines that all activities, devices or processes driven by AI-systems that cause harm or damage but are not listed in the Annex to the proposed Regulation should remain subject to fault- based liability; believes that the affected person should nevertheless benefit from a presumption of fault of the deployer; considers, in this connection, that the national law governing the amount and extent of the compensation and the deadline for claims against injury caused by the AI system remains applicable;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers the liability risk to be one of the key factors that defines the success of new technologies, products and services; observes that proper risk coverage is also essential for assuring the public that it can trust the new technology despite the potential for suffering harm or for facing legal claims by affected persons; notes at the same time that this regulatory system focuses on the need to exploit and enhance the advantages of AI-systems, while putting in place robust safeguards;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
Annex I – part A – paragraph 1 – indent 3 a (new)
- Civil liability standards for artificial intelligence should seek to strike a balance between the protection of the public on the one hand and business incentives to invest in innovation, especially AI systems, on the other;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 1
Annex I – part B – recital 1
(1) The concept of ‘liability’ plays an important double role in our daily life: on the one hand, it ensures that a person who has suffered harm or damage is entitled to claim compensation from the party proven to be liable for that harm or damage, and on the other hand, it provides the economic incentives for persons to avoid causing harm or damage in the first place. Any liability framework should strive to instil confidence in the safety, reliability and consistency of products and services, including digital technologies, in order to strike a balance between efficiently protecting potential victims of damage and at the same time, providing enough leeway to make the development of new technologies, products or services possible.
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 6
Annex I – part B – recital 6
(6) Nevertheless, it should always be clear that whoever creates, maintains, controls or interferes with the AI-system, should be accountable for the harm or damage that the activity, device or process causes. This follows from general and widely accepted liability concepts of justice according to which the person that creates a risk for the public is accountable if that risk materializes. Consequently, the rise of AI-systems does not pose a need for a complete revision of liability rules throughout the Union. Specific adjustments of the existing legislation and very few new provisions would be sufficient to accommodate the AI-related challenges, with a view to preventing regulatory fragmentation and ensuring the harmonisation of Union civil liability legislation in connection with artificial intelligence.
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 12
Annex I – part B – recital 12
(12) All AI-systems with a high risk should be exhaustively listed in an Annex to this Regulation. Given the rapid technical and market developments as well as the technical expertise which is required for an adequate review of AI-systems, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission to amend this Regulation in respect of the types of AI-systems that pose a high risk and the critical sectors where they are used. Based on the definitions and provisions laid down in this Regulation, the Commission should review the Annex every six months and, if necessary, amend it by means of delegated acts. To give businesses enough planning and investment security, changes to the critical sectors should only be made every 12 months. Developers are called upon to notify the Commission if they are currently working on a new technology, product or service that falls under one of the existing critical sectors provided for in the Annex and which later could qualify for a high risk AI-system.
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 20
Annex I – part B – recital 20
(20) Despite missing historical claim data, there are already insurance products that are developed area-by-area and cover- by-cover as technology develops. Many insurers specialise in certain market segments (e.g. SMEs) or in providing cover for certain product types (e.g. electrical goods), which means that there will usually be an insurance product available for the insured. If a new type of insurance is needed, the insurance market will develop and offer a fitting solution and thus, will close the insurance gap. In exceptional cases, such as an event incurring collective damages, in which the compensation significantly exceeds the maximum amounts set out in this Regulation, Member States should be encouraged to set up a special compensation fund for a limited period of time that addresses the specific needs of those cases.
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 4 – paragraph 1
Annex I – part B – Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. The deployer of a high-risk AI- system shall be strictly liable for any harm or damage occasioned to the life, health, physical integrity or possessions of natural or legal persons that was caused by a physical or virtual activity, device or process driven by that AI-system.