DenmarkForslag til Lov om produktansvar (Bill L 32), Implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/2853
Forslag til Lov om produktansvar, L 32 (2026/1)
Introduced in the first chamber, dated , as of .
A product liability rule binding private bodies.
- Private right of action
- Yes
As of .
Where it has got to
The text described here is Forslag til Lov om produktansvar, Lovforslag som fremsat, 2026/1 LF 32. That print is L 32, published .
Locally, this stage is Lovforslag som fremsat.
The stage above is recorded at oda.ft.dk.
The Minister of Justice presented the bill to the Folketing on .
What it requires
- If you develop or make software, or have it developed or made, you answer as its manufacturer, unless it is free open-source software that you develop or supply outside commercial activity (Secs. 1(2), 3 point 1 and 3 point 10).
- Keep supplying the software updates and upgrades needed to keep the product safe while the product is within your control: a defect caused by software, by an update or upgrade, or by a missing necessary update is not excused because it arose after you put the product into circulation (Secs. 3 point 5 and 12(2)).
- Meet the product safety requirements that apply to your product, safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements included: they count in judging whether it is defective (Sec. 6(2) point 6), and failing a mandatory requirement that protects against the damage suffered presumes it defective (Sec. 11(2) point 2).
- Account for what your product learns or acquires after it is put into circulation: the effect of that ability is weighed in judging whether it is defective (Sec. 6(2) point 3).
- Keep records you could produce if a court orders disclosure on a claimant's supported request, because failing to comply with the order presumes the product defective (Secs. 10(1), 11(2) point 1).
- If you are a manufacturer established outside the European Union, your importer and your authorized representative answer as the manufacturer would, and where there is neither, the provider of distribution services answers (Sec. 7(1) point 3).
- If you substantially modify a product outside the manufacturer's control and then make it available on the market or put it into use, you answer as its manufacturer (Sec. 7(2)).
- If you are a distributor, or an online platform that lets consumers conclude distance contracts with traders, identify the operator established in the European Union or your own supplier within a month of the injured person's request, or you answer for the product (Sec. 7(3) and (4)).
- Do not rely on a contract term to limit or exclude your liability to an injured person, because the Act cannot be departed from to the injured person's detriment (Sec. 2).
- Be ready to prove a Section 12 defense: that you did not put the product into circulation, that the defect probably did not exist then, that it results from compliance with legal requirements, or that the objective scientific and technical knowledge then did not allow the defect to be discovered (Sec. 12(1)).
- If you integrate software made by a micro or small enterprise as a component, a recourse waiver agreed with that enterprise removes your recourse against it (Sec. 13(4)).
- Claims are time-barred 3 years after the injured person knew or should have known of the damage, the defect and the liable operator, and the right expires 10 years after the product was put into circulation or into use, or 25 years for a latent personal injury (Secs. 15 and 16).
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of .
Who enforces it
Settledness
- As of
What this law does
Bill L 32 of the 2026-27 session of the Folketing, a Forslag til Lov om produktansvar, was presented by the Minister of Justice on . The Ministry of Justice states that the purpose of the bill is to implement Directive (EU) 2024/2853 in Danish law. The Folketing's open-data record of the case lists the step Lovforslag som fremsat for the bill, dated . Section 18 of the bill would bring the new Act into force on .
Section 18 would repeal the Produktansvarslov in force and keep its rules for products put into circulation or into use before the new Act enters into force. Section 1 applies the new Act to the liability of economic operators for damage caused by defective products that have been put into circulation or put into use. Section 1 excludes free open-source software that is developed or supplied outside commercial activity.
Section 3 defines a product as any movable object, including electricity, digital manufacturing files, raw materials and software. The memorandum says that, compared with the present law, the product concept is clarified to cover software, intangible products and raw materials as well. The memorandum says that operating systems, firmware, computer programs, applications and AI systems will be products under the Act.
The memorandum says that software is a product however it is supplied, whether it is stored on a device, accessed through a communication network or cloud technology, or supplied as Software-as-a-Service. Section 3 defines a component as any tangible or intangible object, any raw material and any related service that is integrated into or connected with a product. Section 4 gives any natural person who suffers damage caused by a defective product a right to compensation under the Act.
Section 5 covers death and personal injury including psychological injury, damage to or destruction of property, and destruction or corruption of data not used for professional purposes. Section 5 leaves out of the property damage covered the defective product itself, a product damaged by a defective component that its manufacturer integrated or controls, and property used exclusively for professional purposes.
Section 6 weighs among the circumstances in judging a defect the relevant product safety requirements, including safety-relevant cybersecurity requirements. Section 6 also weighs the effect on the product of any ability to keep learning or to acquire new functions after it is put into circulation or into use. Section 7 makes liable the manufacturer of a defective product, including for a defective component that is integrated into or connected with a product the manufacturer controls.
Where the manufacturer is established outside the European Union, section 7 also makes liable the importer, the authorized representative and, if there is neither, the provider of distribution services. Section 7 treats a person who substantially modifies a product outside the manufacturer's control, and then makes it available on the market or puts it into use, as its manufacturer.
Section 7 makes each distributor liable where no operator established in the European Union can be identified, unless the distributor names one or its own supplier within a month of the injured person's request.
Section 7 applies the same rule to a provider of an online platform that lets consumers conclude distance contracts with traders and is not itself an economic operator, where the platform presents the product in a way that leads an average consumer to believe that the platform or a recipient under its authority supplies it.
Section 10 has the court order an economic operator defendant to disclose relevant evidence in its control, on the request of an injured person who has put forward facts and evidence sufficient to support the claim. Section 11 leaves the injured person to prove the defect, the damage and the causal link between them. Section 11 presumes the product defective where an economic operator does not comply with a disclosure order under section 10.
Section 11 also presumes the product defective where the injured person shows that it does not meet mandatory product safety requirements meant to protect against the damage suffered. Section 11 presumes the defect or the causal link where, despite disclosure, the injured person faces disproportionate difficulties because of technical or scientific complexity and shows that the defect or the causal link is likely.
Section 12 releases an economic operator that proves, among other things, that the objective scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time did not allow the defect to be discovered. The Ministry of Justice proposes not to use the option in Article 18(1) of the Directive to keep operators liable for development risks.
Section 12 denies the exemption for a defect that arose after circulation where the defect is due, within the manufacturer's control, to a related service, to software including updates or upgrades, to missing software updates or upgrades needed to maintain safety, or to a substantial modification.
Section 13 denies a manufacturer that integrates software as a component a right of recourse against the manufacturer of a defective software component that was a micro or small enterprise when it put the component into circulation, where the two agreed to waive the right. Section 2 provides that an economic operator's liability under the Act cannot be limited or departed from by agreement to the detriment of the injured person.
Section 15 sets a limitation period of 3 years for bringing an action for compensation, running from the day the injured person knew or should reasonably have known of the damage, the defect and the identity of the liable operator. Section 16 ends the right to compensation 10 years after the day the defective product was put into circulation or into use, unless the injured person has brought proceedings in the meantime. Section 16 extends the period to 25 years where the latency of a personal injury prevented an action within 10 years.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app crawls the web, trains models, generates content with AI, deploys a chatbot, sends automated outreach, makes high-risk automated decisions, processes voice recordings, processes biometric data, publishes adult content, operates a social platform, serves under-18s, operates an app store, ships a mobile app, reuses other publishers' content, distributes a software product, records calls, records text chat or tracks devices.