EU AI Liability Directive (withdrawn proposal)

Applies To

Overview

The AI Liability Directive (AILD) was introduced by the European Commission in September 2022 as a companion instrument to the EU AI Act. Where the AI Act established ex ante (before a product reaches the market) product safety and conformity requirements, the AILD was designed to address ex post (after harm occurs) civil liability. Specifically, it targeted the challenge claimants face when harm results from opaque, automated decision-making systems. The directive proposed two central mechanisms: first, national courts would be empowered to order defendants to disclose evidence and documentation about high-risk AI systems; second, a rebuttable presumption of causation would apply when a defendant fails to comply with disclosure orders or where the claimant demonstrates that non-compliance with an applicable duty of care made the harm likely. The directive was intended to apply across member states through minimum harmonisation, leaving national procedural law otherwise intact. Negotiations stalled over disagreements regarding scope, the definition of fault, and the interaction with the Product Liability Directive (PLD), which was being revised simultaneously. In February 2025 the European Commission announced it would withdraw the proposal as part of a broader simplification push. The Commission approved the withdrawal on 16 July 2025, and the notice was published in the Official Journal on 6 October 2025. The revised Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 treats AI systems as products, including software supplied as a service, with disclosure orders and presumptions. It fills much of the gap, though not fault-based claims. Enterprises should monitor whether a revised or successor instrument is formally proposed under the current Commission mandate. Member states may also introduce national AI liability rules in the interim, creating fragmented exposure.

Key Requirements

• •Disclosure obligation: Courts could order defendants to disclose relevant evidence about high-risk AI systems where claimants demonstrate a plausible case of harm.
• •Rebuttable presumption of causation: Where disclosure is refused or the defendant has breached a relevant duty of care, courts would presume a causal link between the breach and the harm, subject to rebuttal by the defendant.
• •Fault-based framework: Liability was to remain fault-based; the directive did not introduce strict liability for AI systems (that question was addressed in the parallel PLD revision).
• •Interaction with EU AI Act: The duty of care triggering the presumption was linked to obligations under the EU AI Act, including conformity assessments, logging, and human oversight requirements for high-risk systems.
• •Minimum harmonisation: Member states would have retained freedom to adopt more protective national rules.
• •Applicability to providers and deployers: Both developers and deploying entities could face liability, consistent with the dual-actor model in the EU AI Act.

What Your Organization Must Do

• →Remove the withdrawn AI Liability Directive from compliance roadmaps, since it has no legal effect.
• →Maintain conformity records, logs and human oversight documentation required under the EU AI Act for high-risk systems.
• →Assess civil liability exposure under the revised Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853, which treats software and AI as products.
• →Track national AI liability rules in member states, because fragmented exposure may arise without an EU instrument.
• →Brief litigation counsel on court disclosure orders and presumptions available under the revised Product Liability Directive.
• →Monitor whether the Commission proposes a successor liability instrument during the current mandate.

Playbook Guidance

Step-by-step implementation guidance for compliance teams.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the EU AI Liability Directive ever enacted into law?

No, the Commission listed it for withdrawal in February 2025 and approved the withdrawal on 16 July 2025. The notice was published on 6 October 2025, and the proposal has no legal effect.

Why was the AI Liability Directive withdrawn in 2025?

The Commission withdrew it as part of a broader regulatory simplification push under the Competitiveness Compass. Political agreement stalled over the directive's scope, its definition of fault, and how it would interact with the simultaneously revised Product Liability Directive.

Does the revised Product Liability Directive cover AI systems now that the AILD is withdrawn?

Largely, yes: Directive (EU) 2024/2853 treats software, including AI systems, as a product however it is supplied, including as a service. It gives courts disclosure orders and presumptions of defect and causation. The gaps left are fault-based claims and harms outside its scope.

Could companies still face AI-related civil liability in the EU without the AILD?

Yes. Claimants can still pursue claims under existing national tort frameworks, and causation arguments may be advanced using general civil procedure rules. Member states may also enact their own AI liability rules now that the AILD has lapsed, creating fragmented exposure across jurisdictions.

How did the AILD's causation presumption interact with EU AI Act compliance obligations?

The rebuttable presumption was triggered when a defendant breached a duty of care linked to EU AI Act obligations, such as conformity assessments, logging, and human oversight requirements for high-risk systems. Failure to meet those obligations would have made causation presumed unless the defendant could rebut it.

Should compliance teams still prepare documentation as if the AILD were in force?

Yes, for practical reasons. Conformity records, logs, and oversight documentation for high-risk AI systems remain required under the EU AI Act regardless. A successor directive is possible under the current Commission mandate, and complete documentation reduces litigation exposure under both national tort law and the revised Product Liability Directive.