The Articles of the AI Liability Directive (Proposal 28.9.2022)

Article 4, Rebuttable presumption of a causal link in the case of fault.

1. Subject to the requirements laid down in this Article, national courts shall presume, for the purposes of applying liability rules to a claim for damages, the causal link between the fault of the defendant and the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output, where all of the following conditions are met:

(a) the claimant has demonstrated or the court has presumed pursuant to Article 3(5), the fault of the defendant, or of a person for whose behaviour the defendant is responsible, consisting in the non-compliance with a duty of care laid down in Union or national law directly intended to protect against the damage that occurred;

(b)it can be considered reasonably likely, based on the circumstances of the case, that the fault has influenced the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output;

(c)the claimant has demonstrated that the output produced by the AI system or the failure of the AI system to produce an output gave rise to the damage.

2. In the case of a claim for damages against a provider of a high-risk AI system subject to the requirements laid down in chapters 2 and 3 of Title III of [the AI Act] or a person subject to the provider’s obligations pursuant to [Article 24 or Article 28(1) of the AI Act], the condition of paragraph 1 letter (a) shall be met only where the complainant has demonstrated that the provider or, where relevant, the person subject to the provider’s obligations, failed to comply with any of the following requirements laid down in those chapters, taking into account the steps undertaken in and the results of the risk management system pursuant to [Article 9 and Article 16 point (a) of the AI Act]:

(a) the AI system is a system which makes use of techniques involving the training of models with data and which was not developed on the basis of training, validation and testing data sets that meet the quality criteria referred to in [Article 10(2) to (4) of the AI Act];

(b) the AI system was not designed and developed in a way that meets the transparency requirements laid down in [Article 13 of the AI Act];

(c) the AI system was not designed and developed in a way that allows for an effective oversight by natural persons during the period in which the AI system is in use pursuant to [Article 14 of the AI Act];

(d) the AI system was not designed and developed so as to achieve, in the light of its intended purpose, an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity pursuant to [Article 15 and Article 16, point (a), of the AI Act]; or

(e) the necessary corrective actions were not immediately taken to bring the AI system in conformity with the obligations laid down in [Title III, Chapter 2 of the AI Act] or to withdraw or recall the system, as appropriate, pursuant to [Article 16, point (g), and Article 21 of the AI Act].

3. In the case of a claim for damages against a user of a high-risk AI system subject to the requirements laid down in chapters 2 and 3 of Title III of [the AI Act], the condition of paragraph 1 letter (a) shall be met where the claimant proves that the user:

(a) did not comply with its obligations to use or monitor the AI system in accordance with the accompanying instructions of use or, where appropriate, suspend or interrupt its use pursuant to [Article 29 of the AI Act]; or

(b) exposed the AI system to input data under its control which is not relevant in view of the system’s intended purpose pursuant to [Article 29(3) of the Act].

4. In the case of a claim for damages concerning a high-risk AI system, a national court shall not apply the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 where the defendant demonstrates that sufficient evidence and expertise is reasonably accessible for the claimant to prove the causal link mentioned in paragraph 1.

5. In the case of a claim for damages concerning an AI system that is not a high-risk AI system, the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 shall only apply where the national court considers it excessively difficult for the claimant to prove the causal link mentioned in paragraph 1.

6. In the case of a claim for damages against a defendant who used the AI system in the course of a personal, non-professional activity, the presumption laid down in paragraph 1 shall apply only where the defendant materially interfered with the conditions of the operation of the AI system or if the defendant was required and able to determine the conditions of operation of the AI system and failed to do so.

7.The defendant shall have the right to rebut the presumption laid down in paragraph 1.

Contact us

Cyber Risk GmbH
Dammstrasse 16
8810 Horgen
Tel: +41 79 505 89 60
Email: george.lekatis@cyber-risk-gmbh.com

Web: https://www.cyber-risk-gmbh.com

We process and store data in compliance with both, the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP) and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The service provider is Hostpoint. The servers are located in the Interxion data center in Zürich, the data is saved exclusively in Switzerland, and the support, development and administration activities are also based entirely in Switzerland.

Understanding Cybersecurity in the European Union.

1. The NIS 2 Directive

2. The European Cyber Resilience Act

3. The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)

4. The Critical Entities Resilience Directive (CER)

5. The Digital Services Act (DSA)

6. The Digital Markets Act (DMA)

7. The European Health Data Space (EHDS)

8. The European Chips Act

9. The European Data Act

10. The European Data Governance Act (DGA)

11. The EU Cyber Solidarity Act