Manufacturer’s liability for continuous product learning

This paper aims to explore a novel aspect of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 (PLD): the manufacturer’s liability for continuous product learning. This is a new criterion for evaluating product defectiveness that integrates artificial intelligence. The PLD pays limited attention to this matter, so the study aims to identify the conditions under which a product’s continuous learning might be deemed defective. Firstly, it is argued that this basis for assessing whether a product is defective should be understood to apply to generative AI systems, rather than to AI systems that do not change their behaviour after deployment. Secondly, the ten-year limitation period for holding the manufacturer liable, starting from the time the product was placed on the market or put into service, seems unsuitable for products that undergo continuous learning, as their features may change over time. Thirdly, the crucial factor enabling the manufacturer’s liability is that the product remains within the manufacturer’s control, allowing modifications to correct defects caused by continuous learning.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IDP Revista de Internet Derecho y Política
Published
2026-03-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i44.433369
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Manufacturer’s liability for continuous product learning

Guillem Izquierdo Grau
IDP Revista de Internet Derecho y Política
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Manufacturer’s liability for continuous product learning

Guillem Izquierdo Grau
article en

Abstract

This paper aims to explore a novel aspect of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 (PLD): the manufacturer’s liability for continuous product learning. This is a new criterion for evaluating product defectiveness that integrates artificial intelligence. The PLD pays limited attention to this matter, so the study aims to identify the conditions under which a product’s continuous learning might be deemed defective. Firstly, it is argued that this basis for assessing whether a product is defective should be understood to apply to generative AI systems, rather than to AI systems that do not change their behaviour after deployment. Secondly, the ten-year limitation period for holding the manufacturer liable, starting from the time the product was placed on the market or put into service, seems unsuitable for products that undergo continuous learning, as their features may change over time. Thirdly, the crucial factor enabling the manufacturer’s liability is that the product remains within the manufacturer’s control, allowing modifications to correct defects caused by continuous learning.

IDP Revista de Internet Derecho y Política(44)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 37%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.