4 Amendments of Jean-Lin LACAPELLE related to 2020/2014(INL)
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that AI systems and the devices that use them are products and must remain subject to the rules on products and not be treated as an exception;
Amendment 73 #
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 clarity; proposes that these differences in approach be translated into different obligations as regards the manufacture of products, resulting in different liability regimes with clear mechanisms and scope; recommends that these obligations be reflected in safeguards in the configuration of AI systems, particularly as regards their interactions with third- party systems, especially on-line, or with connected objects; calls on the Commission to consider in particular laying down different obligations and liability regimes depending on whether the consumer or user of the AI product is a private individual or a professional, as follows: – As regards professional civil liability, including the provision by an undertaking of subcontracted staff or employees: ○ A simple presumption of liability should apply to the provider of the AI product, whether it is the manufacturer, seller or licensor, the determining factor being, in the case of a product transmission chain, the moment when the capacity or configuration linked to the event giving rise to the liability is defined; ○ The provider in question should be able to exonerate itself from such liability by demonstrating a fault attributable to the professional user, subject to the correct functioning of the technological safeguards in respect of which its liability has been invoked, and provided that the professional user was familiar with the conditions of use of the AI system and that those conditions are readily understandable, for which matters both the obligation and the burden of proof should rest with the provider; – As regards personal civil liability, without prejudice to the liability of professional principals for their employees: ○ Providers, manufacturers or resellers should be required to employ safeguards and configurations commensurate with the highest level of risk when placing AI products intended for private individuals on the market, in particular as regards communication with other systems (such as social networks or the internet) or as regards connected objects (such as security or alarm systems), in accordance with the standards laid down; ○ Any civil damage attributable to an AI product should automatically trigger the liability of the provider, which may exonerate itself by demonstrating compliance with the standards applicable to its product; ○ Given the unforeseeable nature of the effects and damage which may be caused by AI products, consideration could be given to limiting the amount of damages which may be claimed against a person sued for no-fault civil liability in connection with an AI product, without prejudice to the rules applicable to insurance for the excess;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges that AI systems intended for private individuals should have a limited lifetime, which would not rule out the reinstallation of the same system with identical configurations when the lifetime of the system installed at the time of sale expires; suggests that, during this lifetime, the manufacturer should have an obligation to guarantee conformity, which would be enforceable by means of regular technical inspections, the performance of which would trigger a standard extension of the applicable guarantee;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Strongly recommends that the Member States recruit to their judicial services full-time experts to assist those services in establishing the technical materiality of the circumstances of the case in order to determine the applicable liability, so as to enable the judicial authorities to resolve disputes swiftly, in accordance with the proper administration of justice, and without being dependent on external expertise which, given the specialised nature of AI, may only be available from industry professionals.