On 28 September, the European Commission published its proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive which  complements and modernises the EU civil liability framework by introducing for the first time rules specific to damages caused by AI systems. 

The purpose is to lay down uniform rules in case of damages caused by AI systems and to establish broader protection for victims. The Directive is applicable to both individuals and businesses. The new rules will, for instance, make it easier to obtain compensation if someone has been discriminated against in a recruitment process involving AI technology.

It is proposed that five years after the entry into force of the AI Liability Directive, the Commission will assess the need for no-fault liability rules for AI-related claims if necessary.

Consequently, on 3 October, the Commission enabled relevant stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed AI Liability Directive. All feedback to be received will be summarised by the Commission and presented to the Parliament and Council with the aim of feeding into the legislative debate.

As part of its mandate, ESBG replied to the Commission’s call for feedback on 2 December. In its response, ESBG supports the protection of consumers as well as adapting liability rules to the digital age, thereby setting out a framework for excellence and trust in AI.

However, ESBG understands from the proposed Directive that the presumption of a causal link in the case of fault is mainly a matter of “non-compliance of due diligence duties”. In this context, ESBG calls for clarification on what could be considered as non-compliance of due diligence duties. In particular, ESBG questions whether the presence of bias or discrimination could be considered a noncompliance of due diligence duties. Furthermore, clarification is necessary on what tools are available to providers and users of AI systems to refute the causal link.

Finally, as the AILD is a directive, members stress the importance to take the cultural and legal differences between member states into account when implementing. Different application across member states can lead to regulatory arbitrage where firms choose where to be domiciled according to the member states legislative application. Therefore, the directive should be aligned with the Rome I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation regarding the conflict of laws on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations.