18 Amendments of Kris PEETERS related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Artificial Intelligence (AI) playsemerging digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things and of Services (IoT/IoS) or robotics, play and will continue to play an increasing role in our everyday lives and hasve the potential to contribute to the development of innovations in many sectors and offer benefits for consumers through innovative products and services and, for businesses, through optimised performance;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas the Union's existing safety and liability framework might need to be adapted, as highlighted by the Commission's Report on the safety and liability implications for Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things and robotics;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas product safety and product liability are two complementary mechanisms pursuing the same policy goal of a functioning single market for goods and services, and this Opinion suggests possible adjustments to the Union liability frameworks in light of the increased importance of emerging digital technologies;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the use and development of AI applications in productartificial intelligence and other emerging digital technologies might also present challenges to the existing legaliability frameworks on products and reduce their effectiveness, thus potentially undermining consumer trust and welfare due to their specific characteristics;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas robust liability mechanisms remedying damage contribute to better protection of consumers, creation of trust in new technologies integrated in products and acceptance for innovationitizens and consumers from harm, creation of trust in emerging digital technologies while ensuring legal certainty for businesses and enabling them to innovate;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. StressesPoints out the need to assess to what extent thedapt the Union's 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 - PLD), to the digital world; calls on the Commission to revise the PLD, by addressing the challenges posed by emerging digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of things (IoT) or robotics, thereby ensuring effective citizen and consumer protection from harm as well as legal clariertainty for businesses, while avoiding high costs and risks especially for small and medium enterprises and start- ups; __________________ 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 35 #
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; asks the Commission to assess whether a Regulation on general product liability could contribute to this aim; 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 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to assess whether definitions and concepts in the product liability framework need to be updated due to the specific characteristics of AI apprevise the product liability framework by taking into account the specific challenges of digitalicsations for liability law such as complexity, autonomy and opacconnectivity, openness, autonomy, opacity (un)predictability, data- drivenness and vulnerability;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the Commission to scrutinise whether it is necessary to include software inclarify the definition of ‘products’ under the Product Liability Directive and to update concepts such, by determining whether digital content and digital services fall under its scope and to consider adapting such concepts 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;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Asks the Commission to consider the liability of online marketplaces by qualifying them as 'supplier' under the Product Liability Directive;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the Commission to consider, in close coordination with corresponding possible adjustments to the Union safety framework, whether the notion of 'time when the product was put into circulation' currently used by the Product Liability Directive, is fit for purpose for emerging digital technologies, taking into account that they may be changed or altered under the producer's control after they have been placed on the market;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Asks the Commission to consider holding a producer of specific emerging digital technologies liable for unforeseeable defects, in cases where it was predictable that unforeseen developments might occur;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of ensuring a fair liability system thatand efficient allocation of loss in order to attribute liability in the most appropriate way; underlines the relevance of makesing it possible for consumervictims to prove that a defect in a product caused damage, even if third party software is involved or the cause of a defect is hard to trace, for example when products are part of a complex interconnected Internet of Things environment;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate whether and to what extent the burden of proof should be reversedconsider adapting the rules governing the burden of proof for harms caused by emerging digital technologies, in order to empower harmed consumers while preventing abuse and providing legal clariertainty for businesses;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Asks the Commission to assess the introduction of a duty on producers of emerging digital technologies to equip their products with means of recording information about the operation of the technology, in accordance with applicable data protection provisions and the rules concerning the protection of trade secrets, taking into account, amongst others, the likelihood that a risk of the technology materialises, whether such a duty is appropriate and proportionate and the technical feasibility and costs of it; failing to comply with this duty or refusing to give the victim reasonable access to this information would trigger a rebuttable liability presumption of the producer;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights the need for a risk based approach to AI within the existing liability framework, which takes into account different levels of risk for consumers in specific sectors and uses of AI; underlines that such an approach, that might encompass two or more levels of risk, should be based on clear criteria and provide for legal clariertainty;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Asks the Commission to carefully assess the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a strict liability model for products containing AI applicationintroduction of a separate yet complementary strict liability regime for AI systems presenting a high risk to cause harm or damage to one or more persons in a manner that is rand consider it only in specific high risk areas; underlines the need to strictly respect the proportionality principle if this approach is retainedom and impossible to predict in advance, taking into account its likely impact on the protection of citizens and consumers from harm, the capacity of businesses - particularly SMEs - to innovate, the coherence of the Union's safety and liability framework and on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.