Product liability reform: Belgian government introduces Draft Bill
On 16 October 2026, the Belgian government tabled its Draft Bill in the Chamber of Representatives to (partially) transpose the new EU Product Liability Directive 2024/2853. The Draft Bill rewrites the product liability rules of the Belgian Civil Code (Arts. 6.41 ff.) and inserts a new Art. 877/1 into the Code of Civil Procedure on the disclosure of evidence.
The new regime keeps the core of the 1985 system: strict (no-fault) liability for damage caused by defective products. The new rules cover software, AI systems and online supply chains, compensate more types of damage and make defectiveness easier to prove.
This article sets out the rights injured persons will have, so businesses can gauge their exposure.
Q&A
Who can claim? – Only natural persons, whether or not they act as consumers. Legal persons cannot rely on the regime for their own damage.
Who can be held liable? – Manufacturers (including of software, AI systems and components), importers, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers. In limited cases, distributors and online platforms may also be liable.
What can be claimed? – Death, personal injury, damage to property other than the defective product itself or property used exclusively for professional purposes, and destruction or corruption of data used for private purposes.
Is it easier to bring a successful claim? – Yes, because of court-ordered disclosure of evidence and presumptions of defectiveness and causation.
When does the new regime apply? – To products placed on the market or put into service from the day the law is published in the Belgian Official Gazette.
Is it still possible to sue on the basis of fault? – Yes, where the claim rests on the manufacturer’s own wrongful conduct, not merely on the product’s defectiveness.
Key changes to Belgian product liability law
The main changes the Draft Bill would introduce are:
- Software (including AI systems) and digital manufacturing files (such as 3D printing files) are expressly indicated as "products". Free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity is, however, excluded.
- A product is now also defective if it lacks the safety required by EU or Belgian law. Cybersecurity requirements, self-learning capabilities and recalls are also factors judges should take into account.
- Destruction or corruption of data used for private purposes can be compensated, and the 500 EUR deductible for property damage disappears.
- The circle of economic operators widens to authorised representatives, fulfilment service providers and, in some cases, online platforms.
- New presumptions of defectiveness and causation are introduced, e.g. where a defendant fails to disclose evidence or where technical/scientific complexity makes proof excessively difficult.
- The expiry period for latent personal injuries is extended from 10 to 25 years.
The Directive aims at maximum harmonisation. The only flexibility the Directive leaves Member States concerns the development risk defence: they may derogate from it for specific categories of products (Art. 18). Belgium does not, so manufacturers can still be exempted from liability by proving that the objective state of scientific and technical knowledge did not allow the defect to be discovered.
The Draft Bill describes itself as a partial transposition, which should not be given too much weight. Its correspondence table shows that several provisions of the Directive are already covered by existing Belgian law and, therefore, need no new text.
Injured persons and damage
The regime only protects natural persons, who need not be consumers. For example, a self-employed person whose laptop is damaged can claim under the new product liability rules, as long as the laptop is not exclusively used for professional purposes. The work files on that laptop, however, would not be covered: unlike property, data used even partly for professional purposes falls outside the regime.
Legal persons cannot rely on the regime but can still rely on general contract or tort law.
Injured persons can claim for death and personal injury, now expressly including medically recognised damage to psychological health (which, the Explanatory Memorandum notes, reflects existing Belgian law). They can also claim for damage to other property, and for the destruction or corruption of data used for private purposes.
Damage to the defective product itself and to property used exclusively for professional purposes remains excluded.
Injured persons recover all resulting material and non-material losses.
Liable economic operators
The manufacturer is liable, including for defective components integrated under its control, as is the manufacturer of the defective component. Developers and providers of software and AI systems count as manufacturers. For non-EU manufacturers, the injured person can turn to the importer and the authorised representative or, failing both, the fulfilment service provider. Anyone who substantially modifies a product outside the manufacturer's control and makes it available on the market or puts it into service again, is treated as its manufacturer.
Distributors are in principle liable only if no EU-based economic operator can be identified and they fail to name one, or their own supplier, within 1 month of the injured person's request. The same applies to online platforms that lead an average consumer to believe that the platform, or a trader under its control, supplies the product.
Liable economic operators are jointly and severally liable, with recourse under general law. Clauses that exclude or limit liability towards the injured person are void.
Proof
The injured person must prove the damage, the defectiveness and the causal link, but two mechanisms ease this burden.
First, under the new Art. 877/1 Code of Civil Procedure, a court can order the defendant to disclose relevant evidence at its disposal once the injured person has presented facts and evidence sufficient to support the plausibility of the claim. The defendant can, in turn, obtain disclosure from the claimant if it shows that it needs the evidence to counter the claim. Disclosure must be necessary and proportionate, and trade secrets and other confidential information may be protected.
Second, the Draft Bill introduces rebuttable presumptions. Defectiveness is presumed if the defendant fails to disclose the evidence ordered, if the product breaches mandatory safety requirements intended to protect against the risk of the damage suffered, or if the damage results from an obvious malfunction during reasonably foreseeable use or under ordinary circumstances. Causation is then presumed where the damage is of a kind typically consistent with the defect. Where, even after disclosure, technical or scientific complexity makes proof excessively difficult, the injured person need only show that defectiveness and/or causation is likely.
Limitation and expiry periods
Claims must be brought within 3 years from the day the injured person knew, or should reasonably have known, of the damage, the defect and the identity of the econmic operator. In any event, the right to compensation expires 10 years after the product was placed on the market or put into service (or after its substantial modification), unless the injured person has started legal proceedings within that period. For latent personal injuries, this expiry period is extended to 25 years.
Fault-based claims
The Draft Bill preserves the rights of the injured person under general contract and tort law. That does not mean, however, that they can freely choose their legal basis.
The Explanatory Memorandum endorses the Belgian Court of Cassation's judgment of 14 March 2024: a claim against a manufacturer based solely on the product's defect falls exclusively under the product liability regime. Injured persons cannot avoid the conditions of the product liability regime by relabelling the same complaint as a general tort claim.
Referring to the CJEU's Sanofi Pasteur ruling (C-338/24), the Explanatory Memorandum adds that fault-based claims remain possible where they rest on the manufacturer’s own wrongful conduct rather than on the defect alone, even if that conduct is linked to the defect, such as keeping a product on the market while knowing it is defective.
Such a claim (Arts. 6.5 and 6.6 Civil Code) is harder to win: the injured person must prove a fault, without the regime's presumptions. It also has its advantages:
- The general limitation period applies: 5 years from knowledge of the damage and the liable person, and in any event 20 years from the event that caused it (Art. 2262bis old Civil Code).
- Full compensation: including for property used exclusively for professional purposes.
- No development risk defence: a manufacturer that learns of a risk and fails to act cannot shelter behind the state of knowledge when the product was marketed.
Exposure therefore continues after the 10-year expiry period, particularly where a company fails to act once it knows of a risk.
Timing
The transposition deadline is 9 December 2026. The Directive covers products placed on the market or put into service after 8 December 2026. Because of this short deadline, the Draft Bill would apply to products placed on the market or put into service immediately from the day the law is published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The text may still be amended in Parliament.
Products put into circulation earlier remain governed by the current Arts. 6.41-6.55 Civil Code.
What businesses should do now
Manufacturers, importers, software and AI developers, marketplaces and insurers should review recourse clauses, insurance cover, technical documentation and their readiness for court-ordered disclosure. Distributors should also prepare for requests to identify a liable EU operator. Product safety compliance now directly affects civil liability, since breaching mandatory safety requirements can trigger a presumption of defectiveness.
At Pierstone, we are following the parliamentary debate closely. If you would like to discuss how the new rules affect your products, contracts or insurance, please get in touch.
This news is not legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this news.