Activities of Stelios KOULOGLOU related to 2020/2014(INL)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence
Amendments (4)
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need to assess to what extent the existing liability framework, and in particular the Council Directive 85/374/EEC1 (the Product Liability Directive), needs to be updated in order to guarantee effective consumer protection and legal clarity for businesses, while avoiding high costs and risks especially for small and medium enterprises and start-upconsumers and businesses; __________________ 1 Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29).
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that any revision of the existing liability framework should aim to further harmonise liability rules in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market; stresses, however, the importance of ensuring that Union regulation remains limited to clearly identified problems for which feasible solutions exist and leaves room for further technological developments;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to scrutinise whether it is necessary to include software in the definition of ‘products’ under the Product Liability Directive and to update concepts such as ‘producer’, ‘damage’ and ‘defect’, and if so, to what extent; asks the Commission to also examine whether the product liability framework needs to be revised in order to protect injured parties efficiently as regards products that are purchased as a bundle with related services; calls on the Commission to also include the liability of platforms operating as online market places in their proposal for an updated Product Liability Directive;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to revaluate whether and to what extenterse the burden of proof should be reversed in order to empower harmed consumers, who are today faced with an unnecessary burden to get justice, while preventing abuse and providing legal clarity for businesses;