EP Commission Rejects AI Liability Rules as ‘Superfluous’

Brussels: The adoption of a directive on liability for artificial intelligence at this stage is considered premature and unnecessary by the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee, which has suggested that the Legal Affairs Committee, responsible for this matter, propose rejecting the European Commission’s proposal.

According to Ansa News Agency, the proposed directive, introduced during the last legislature, had been pending for a long time awaiting the adoption of the AI Act, the European law on AI. It was ultimately withdrawn by the EU executive in February 2025. The Berlaymont Palace justified this decision by stating that “no agreement” was foreseeable.

The Internal Market Committee believes that the “combined effect” of the AI Act and the Product Liability Directive, which expanded liability rules for AI software and applications, signifies a fundamental shift in the legal systems governing AI. The committee contends that the “real impact on the internal market, including innovation, Europe’s global competitiveness in the AI sector, manufacturing, consumer welfare, businesses, economic growth or social development,” will only be fully understood after “several years.”

MEPs further argue that adding another layer of regulation would undermine the EU’s objective of fostering innovation in AI and attracting AI companies and talent to Europe. The Committee also notes that there is currently “no demonstrated legal gap or market failure that would justify a separate AI liability directive,” and considers the existing rules “sufficient” to address AI liability issues.

The issue now advances to the Legal Affairs Committee, where the directive appears to have a better chance of surviving. This is due to the divisions on the dossier among the European People’s Party and the European Liberals, who voted in favor of withdrawing the directive in the Internal Market Committee.

The likely swing vote is expected to be the rapporteur, Axel Voss, an EPP MEP, who has opposed the withdrawal from the beginning. Voss accused the Commission of succumbing to pressure from industry lobbies, who “consider any rule on civil liability as an existential threat to their business models.”

Should the directive be favored, MEPs might challenge the Berlaymont Palace’s decision to withdraw the legislation at the Court of Justice of the EU.