The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future

Philipp Hacker

2023-07-29

Abstract:As ChatGPT et al. conquer the world, the optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final cornerstone of EU AI regulation. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels Effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and beyond. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper attempts to address the issue of the legal liability framework for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. With the continuous introduction of large generative models like ChatGPT, AI technology is undergoing a revolution, raising questions about who should be legally responsible for the errors of AI systems. To tackle this challenge, in September 2022, the European Commission proposed two draft directives related to AI liability:

1. **Product Liability Directive (PLD Proposal)**: Mainly targeting physical products and software, including AI systems, aiming to achieve strict liability.
2. **Directive on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AILD Proposal)**: Specifically applicable to AI systems, based on fault liability.

However, the authors of the paper believe these proposals have some shortcomings:
- The proposals take a "half-hearted" approach, mainly relying on evidence disclosure mechanisms and narrowly defined presumptions (such as fault, defect, and causality).
- The proposals fail to adequately coordinate the two directives, leading to some conceptual confusion.
- The proposals do not distinguish between the fundamental differences between social risk and individual risk.

Therefore, the paper makes the following recommendations:
1. **Strict Compensation System**: Implement true strict liability for high-risk AI systems, combined with general presumptions of defect, fault, and causality.
2. **Innovation and Legal Certainty**: Promote innovation through a comprehensive safe harbor system.
3. **Trustworthy AI**: Ensure the non-discrimination and explainability (XAI) of AI systems.
4. **Sustainability**: Focus on the environmental impact of AI systems, proposing the concept of sustainable design defects.

In summary, the paper aims to critique the current AI liability framework and propose improvements to ensure a more reasonable and effective legal liability system.