Lawyer for product liability: software, AI, connected products

Digital products in the liability spotlight

Quick start: what is your matter about?

Your contact: Jean Paul P. Bohne, LL.M., MM

Partner, certified specialist lawyer for IT law and for copyright and media law (Fachanwalt für IT-Recht, Fachanwalt für Urheber- und Medienrecht).

Send liability question

What happens after your enquiry?

After your enquiry, we will get back to you within 24 hours on working days. The first contact is free of charge. Should costs arise, we will inform you expressly in advance.

1. A short description is enough. Describe the product, your role and the supply chain. Technical documentation, update history and contracts with suppliers are helpful.
2. Receipt and initial sorting. We assess the enquiry on the basis of the project described, the documents and the apparent goal. Deadlines and dates should be clearly recognisable.
3. Suitable starting point and cost range. We clarify whether an initial consultation, a service package or a specific mandate is the next step. As soon as the scope of the review is clear, we tell you the cost range – before work begins.

Typical cases from our practice

The following scenarios are abstracted and simplified. Which solution holds up always depends on the specific facts and the contractual situation.

What you will have at the end

Why the topic is relevant for companies

Digital products are sold and at the same time continuously developed, monitored, updated and connected with third-party components. This is exactly where the legally tricky situations arise: the product lives on while responsibilities in development, operation and sales diverge.

Where risks arise today

Often less in the original launch than in later updates, security patches, remote functions, data dependencies, AI model changes, OSS components or unclear white-label and import structures.

Why the reform is so relevant for digital products

The new framework expressly responds to digitalisation, complex supply chains and modern product architectures. For manufacturers of digital products and connected devices, the liability situation can therefore become considerably stricter in many constellations.

When you need us

The biggest liability problems often arise where technical reality and legal allocation diverge. Anyone who reviews these points early avoids disputes and often also unnecessary product and sales blockages.

• A security update does not fully fix a defect or creates new faults in a product-critical function.
• An AI system influences decisions, results or safety states without the roles between provider, integrator and operator being clearly documented.
• Backend, cloud components or connected services are essential to the product function without support, terms and responsibilities having been robustly described.
• Third-party software, open source components, SDKs or firmware are integrated without approval processes, proof of origin and update responsibilities being properly set up.
• Import, white-label or platform constellations shift commercial responsibility without the contractual links being adjusted accordingly.
• After an incident, technical documentation, test versions, release decisions or a robust line of communication towards customers, authorities and insurers are missing.

Legal framework and legislative status

In practice, it is less important to string individual buzzwords together than to separate clearly what already applies today, what the adopted act changes from 9 December 2026 and what consequences this already has for digital product models in compliance, documentation and contract architecture.

Decisive today

Until the new Produkthaftungsgesetz enters into force on 9 December 2026, the previous Produkthaftungsgesetz applies. For products placed on the market up to 8 December 2026, it remains decisive even thereafter. In addition, contract law, tortious producer liability, product safety law, cybersecurity requirements and technical documentation obligations already contribute considerably to the risk situation.

What the new act clearly regulates

Software will in future expressly be considered a product. As a result, AI-based systems also move more strongly into the area of strict product liability. At the same time, post-market issues such as updates, upgrades and subsequent product changes become much more important.

Why the supply chain is more strongly affected

The liability logic is no longer tied only to the classic manufacturer. Importers, fulfilment service providers and, in certain constellations, other market actors in particular come more into focus. This becomes particularly relevant for companies with international sourcing or a platform connection.

What is added procedurally

Disputes are not only becoming more demanding in substance. Disclosure of evidence, statutory presumptions and greater consideration of technical complexity also change the procedural starting position. Anyone who does not have documentation and decision paths under control will defend future cases much less well.

Decisive for companies: This page stays focused on product defects, update risks, the supply chain, defence against claims and recourse. For adjacent special topics, the appropriate in-depth pages are AI law, implementing the AI Act, cybersecurity, implementing NIS2, data law, implementing the Data Act, data protection law and IT contract / software contract.

Typical mandates in product liability law for digital products

Mandates in this area are regularly close to operations. They are usually about decisions under time pressure, with technical dependencies and commercial knock-on effects.

1. Clarification of product and role

We examine whether your product, your software or your AI-supported model falls under product-related liability or safety regimes and which role your company actually assumes: manufacturer, quasi-manufacturer, importer, distributor, integrator or operator of a connected service.

2. Update, patch and release structures

We structure legal requirements for security updates, support periods, release approvals, rollback scenarios, user communication and technical evidence. This is precisely where many avoidable liability and recourse problems arise.

3. Contracts and rights of recourse

We review development, licence, integration, supply, maintenance and platform contracts with regard to the service description, warranty, liability, support, audit rights, indemnities and options for recourse in the supply chain.

4. Acute incidents and defence against claims

We support internal assessment of the situation, securing of documents, coordination with technical teams, defence against claims, approaching suppliers, contact with authorities and strategic communication in a crisis.

Practical benefit: Especially in digital product liability law, the commercially most important part of the case is often decided in the internal structure before the external relationship becomes relevant: who bears which product responsibility, who documents changes, how is recourse regulated and what technical provability actually exists in a dispute?

What specifically shifts with the new act

The reform does not only affect the concept of a product. It shifts liability risks at several points at once. It is precisely this combination that makes the new act so relevant for manufacturers of digital products, AI providers and companies with connected devices.

Software and digital components become central

Anyone who has so far distinguished between a physical product and mere software will have to rebuild their risk analysis. In future, it will no longer be viable to treat software merely as a secondary function of a hardware product. This applies in particular to firmware, apps, product-related platform logic and AI functions.

Other supply chain actors move closer to liability

Importers and fulfilment service providers become considerably more relevant legally. In international or multi-tier sales models, this increases the pressure to organise responsibilities, information flows and recourse chains robustly.

Updates and subsequent changes move closer to liability

The liability assessment no longer effectively ends on the day of launch. Anyone who continues to control a product after placing it on the market, provides updates or initiates substantial changes must accompany the product's life cycle much more closely from a legal perspective.

The evidential and procedural situation becomes more demanding

The reform strengthens injured parties in substance and procedurally. Disclosure of evidence, statutory presumptions and the handling of technical or scientific complexity increase the pressure for robust product files, technical traceability and clean internal documentation of decisions.

Liability caps lose significance

The previous statutory liability framework with the well-known EUR 85 million cap for personal injury is no longer part of the future basic logic. For companies, this does not automatically mean unmanageable liability, but a noticeably stricter risk assessment for serial defects, safety deficiencies and large-scale damage situations.

Review pressure increases for AI and connected devices

The more a product depends on learning systems, data processing, remote control or networked interactions, the more important clarification of roles, product description, user expectations, update concept and technical governance become.

Where the biggest legal mistakes happen

Problems usually stem from structural misconceptions, more rarely from individual detailed mistakes. Anyone who corrects these early considerably reduces risk and the intensity of disputes.

• It is assumed that product liability automatically also covers all internal B2B consequential costs, SLA failures or reputational damage.
• The integration of AI is treated as a mere feature, although roles, documentation and change management become considerably more complex as a result.
• The new legislative status is treated too early as final law already in force or, conversely, ignored, although the adopted act clearly sets the course for future obligations.
• Contractual obligations on support, updates, security, documentation and allocation of liability lag behind the actual product architecture.
• Open source is only seen as a licensing issue, although in the supply chain it can at the same time lead to questions of defects, recourse and governance.
• In an incident, responsibilities, escalation paths and a usable product file are missing.

Particularly relevant for complex supply chains: Anyone who does not develop software, AI functions or connected products entirely themselves should never consider contracts and technical responsibilities separately. Commercially, the case is often only decided in recourse against suppliers, integrators or those responsible for components.

Interfaces with other ITMR practice areas

Product liability in the digital environment is a cross-cutting issue. For sound handling of mandates, it is important to involve the adjacent areas of law in a targeted manner without diluting the focus of the page.

Product-related regulation and governance

If AI roles, risk classification and implementation questions are in the foreground, the in-depth pages AI law and implementing the AI Act make sense. If it is about security by design, vulnerability management and organisational security structure, the appropriate connections are cybersecurity and implementing NIS2.

Data and contract structures

For connected products with data access, telemetry or connected services, data law, implementing the Data Act and, depending on the personal reference, data protection law are regularly relevant. Commercially, IT contract law often remains decisive.

Open source and technical supply chain

Where OSS components, SBOM, licence conditions or compliance processes play a role, open source law, open source compliance and the article MG4 and open source: warranty, recourse, compliance are the appropriate in-depth pages.

Practical contract deep dive

For companies that want to set up liability and project logic properly in the contract, the article Contract drafting in IT law is a useful addition to the product and recourse context.

What we specifically review and design for you

Product liability law for software, AI and connected products is not about formal boilerplate. What matters are robust decisions that bring together product reality, liability risk, market requirements and commercial viability.

Product reference and risk profile

We assess which product-related liability and safety issues your business model actually triggers and how software, AI function, connected product or remote service are to be classified legally.

Update, support and documentation model

We help with the legally sound set-up of support periods, update logic, user communication, technical documents, approval processes and internal evidence.

Contract architecture and recourse

We draft or review contracts so that obligations, warranty, support, liability, indemnities and rights of recourse match the actual supply chain.

Dispute and crisis management

We support incidents, defence against claims, approaching suppliers, internal escalation, contact with authorities and legally controlled communication in sensitive situations.

Suitable contact: For product liability questions in the digital environment, an approach close to technology and regulation is decisive. You will find an obvious contact at Jean Paul Bohne. The whole team can be found under lawyers. Further information about the firm can be found under Why us?.

Continue to send an enquiry now and more on IT law.

Clarify liability questions early, before they tip into product, contract or crisis problems

Whether software product, AI function, connected device, import model or update risk: the earlier product reference, roles, documentation and contract architecture are properly in place, the better liability and recourse risks can be managed.

Continue to get in touch and more on AI law.

Key terms

Produkthaftung (product liability)

Strict (no-fault) liability of the manufacturer for defective products.

Regress (recourse)

Recourse against suppliers or other responsible parties.

SBOM

Software bill of materials listing all components.

OSS

Open source software.

These terms explain the language used on this page. What matters is always the specific individual case.

Provisions and reliable sources

The following statutory provisions and regulations are cited on this page.

Article on the new product liability

This article explores the biggest change in product liability law in decades.

FAQ for companies

The most important questions in this area usually cannot be answered across the board. Decisive are product reference, allocation of roles, type of damage, update logic, procedural situation and contractual embedding.

Clarify liability questions early