Abstract
This paper examines the topical question as to whether non-tangible products such as apps and other software not supplied on a tangible medium (should) qualify as products under EU Product Liability Directive. It addresses the relevant questions posed by the European Commission, which has recently announced an evaluation of the said Directive with the aim of its adaptation to the digital age. The article draws a crucial distinction between information (whether in tangible or non-tangible form) that should not lead to liability and tangible or non-tangible products which are not confined to mere information provision and whose defects may cause material harm. The latter must be considered as falling within the Product Liability Directive, which is eligible to reasonable interpretation achieving this aim.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Murray (2016).
- 2.
Castells (2010).
- 3.
For example, computer can give instructions to another computer through a software that collects instruction from human users.
- 4.
Commission Staff Working Document A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe—Analysis and Evidence Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM (2015) 192 final.
- 5.
Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Concerning Liability for Defective Products [1985] OJ L210/29.
- 6.
European Commission (2016) Evaluation of the Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_grow_027_evaluation_defective_products_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
- 7.
Howells and Willett (2016).
- 8.
[1996] EWCA Civ 1296, 4 All ER 481.
- 9.
[1983] 2 NSWLR 48.
- 10.
925 F.2d 670 (3rd Cir. 1991).
- 11.
SI 1993/3053.
- 12.
Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates [2016] EWHC 1587 QB 68.
- 13.
For example, the Supreme Court in the PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and another v O W Bunker Malta Limited and another [2016] UKSC 23, which held that the sale of bunkers was not on terms used a sale of goods contract, but rather a sui generis contract.
- 14.
[2010] NSWC 267.
- 15.
Koch (2016).
- 16.
- 17.
Green and Saidov (2007).
- 18.
Guibault and others (2011).
- 19.
Section 2(1) states “‘Goods’:
-
(a)
means personal property of every kind (whether tangible or intangible), other than money and choses in action; and
-
(b)
includes—(vi) to avoid doubt, water and computer software.”
-
(a)
- 20.
Bradgate (2010).
- 21.
Competition and Consumer Act 2010. sch 2, section 2, following Gammasonics Institute for Medical Research Pty Ltd v Comrad Medical Systems Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 267, there is a difference in the treatment between consumer and commercial goods in Australia.
- 22.
Consumer Rights Act 2015, Chapter 3.
- 23.
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content COM (2015) 634 final.
- 24.
- 25.
Triaille (1993).
- 26.
Borghetti (2004) citing TGI Paris (1986) 28 May 1986 RTD civ. 552, note Huet J.
- 27.
Holle and Møgelvang-Hansen (2016).
- 28.
Alheit (2001).
- 29.
Ibid 200; Whittaker (1989).
- 30.
Magnus (2016) Supra n 15, p 245.
- 31.
Winter v G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 938 F.2d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 1991); Gorran v Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., 464 F.Supp.2d 315, 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).; Way v Boy Scouts of Am., 856 S.W.2d 230, 239 (Tex. App. 1993).
- 32.
- 33.
Gemignani (1980–1981).
- 34.
Whittaker S Supra n 29; Supra n 28.
- 35.
The Law of 25 February 1991 concerning Liability for Defective Products, Art. 2.
- 36.
Answer of the Commission on 15 November 1988 to written question No. 706/88 [1989] OJ C144/42.
- 37.
Supra n 26.
- 38.
Supra n 30.
- 39.
Supra n 26.
- 40.
Ibid.
- 41.
Supra n 5, Recital 2.
- 42.
A v National Blood Authority [2001] EWHC QB 446, 3 All ER 289 (Burton J).
- 43.
Supra n 6, Art. 6.
- 44.
In a German case, a manufacturer of a motorcycle was found liable in negligence for failing to supervise the accessories market. Parts made by another producer, but aimed at his products, rendered them dangerous: see VI ZR 65/86, NJW 1987, 1009.
- 45.
Supra n 5, Art. 8.
- 46.
Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L11/4.
- 47.
ibid, Art. 2(a).
References
Alheit K (2001) The applicability of the ED product liability directive to software. Comp Int Law J South Afr 34(2):188–209
Answer of the Commission on 15 November 1988 to written question No. 706/88 [1989] OJ C144/42
Borghetti JS (2004) La responsabilité du fait des produits. Etude de droit compare, vol 423. LGDJ, citing TGI Paris (1986) 28 May 1986 RTD civ. 552, note Huet J
Bradgate R (2010) Consumer rights in digital products. A research report prepared for the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, University of Sheffield. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31837/10-1125-consumer-rights-in-digital-products.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2016
Castells M (2010) The information age: economy, society and culture. Volume I: the rise of the network society, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, p xvii
Commission Staff Working Document A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis and Evidence Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, COM (2015) 192 final
European Commission (2016) Evaluation of the Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products. http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_grow_027_evaluation_defective_products_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2016
Gemignani M (1980–1981) Product liability and software. Rutgers Comput Techol Law J 8:173–204
Green S, Saidov D (2007) Software as goods. J Bus Law 161:164–167
Guibault L, and others (2011) The regulation of digital content contracts in the optional instrument of contract law. Eur Rev Priv Law 6:729–758
Holle ML, Møgelvang-Hansen P (2016) Denmark. In: Machnikowski P (ed) European product liability. An analysis of the state of the art in the era of new technologies. Intersentia, Antwerp-Cambridge, pp 155–172
Howells G, Willett C (2016) 3D printing: the limits of contract and challenges for tort. In: Twigg-Flesner C (2015) Conformity of 3D Prints – Can Current Sales Law Cope?. In: Schulze R, Staudenmayer D (eds) Digital revolution: challenges for contact law in practice. Nomos/Hart, pp 67–86
Koch B (2016) Austria. In: Machnikowski P (ed) European product liability. An analysis of the state of the art in the era of new technologies. Intersentia, Antwerp-Cambridge, p 111
Magnus U (2016) Germany. In: Machnikowski P (ed) European product liability. An analysis of the state of the art in the era of new technologies. Intersentia, Antwerp-Cambridge, p 245
Murray A (2016) Information technology law: the law and society, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Prince J (1980) Negligence: liability for defective software. Okla Law Rev 33:848
Schulze R (2016) Supply of digital content. A new challenge for European contract law, Howells G (2016) Reflections on Remedies for Lack of Conformity in Light of the Proposals of the EU Commission on Supply of Digital Content and Online and Other Distance Sales of Goods. In: Alberto de Franceschi (ed) European contract law and the digital single market, Intersentia, pp 127–162
Scott A (1987) Software as “Goods”: Nullum simile est idem. Comput Law Pract 3(4):133–136
Stapleton J (1989) Software, information and the concept of product. Tel Aviv Univ Stud Law 9:147–163
Triaille JP (1993) The EEC Directive of July 25, 1985 on liability for defective products and its application to computer programs. Comput Law Secur Rep 5:214–226
Weber L (2012) Bad bytes: the application of strict products liability to computer software. St. John’s Law Rev 66(2):469–485
Whittaker S (1989) European product liability and intellectual products. Linear Quad Regul 105:125, 129
Zammit J and others (1987) Tort liability for high risk computer software. 1:2–3
Acknowledgment
Hong Kong (Professor Howells’ work was supported by a grant from City University of Hong Kong Project No.9380074).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Howells, G., Twigg-Flesner, C., Willett, C. (2017). Product Liability and Digital Products. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou, T. (eds) EU Internet Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64955-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64955-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64954-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64955-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)