Faulty products: from December, shorter time limits and greater protection for consumers
The EU directive, transposed by a government legislative decree, will introduce new provisions that will apply only to products placed on the market after 9 December 2026
Now, if the manufacturer of a faulty product cannot be traced, the injured party may ask the distributor to clarify who supplied it to them: if the distributor does not reply within three months, they themselves become liable. Under the new rules coming into force on 9 December, the same mechanism will also be extended to the online platforms on which the product was purchased. And the deadline will be shorter: one month.
That is not all. If a device containing a faulty software component deletes a user’s personal data, that loss will be eligible for compensation, along with the costs of data recovery. These are two of the main changes introduced by the draft legislative decree transposing European Directive 2024/2853, which amends the Consumer Code.
The departure in December
This is a topical issue because the decree, which was approved by the Council of Ministers in early August, has just completed its passage through the Chamber of Deputies’ committees for consultation. The Government can therefore proceed to adopt the final text by 9 November 2026, a deadline extended by three months from the original deadline of 9 August. The new rules will apply only to products placed on the market after 9 December 2026; for those placed on the market before that date, the current regulations remain in force.
More suppliers and more products
Let’s look at some of the new provisions. Where the manufacturer is established outside the EU, the importer and the authorised representative are jointly liable; in the absence of both, the logistics service provider is liable. The definition of ‘product’ is extended to include software, electricity, raw materials and files for digital manufacturing.
Lower burden of proof
The burden of proof regarding the defect, the damage and the causal link remains with the injured party, but there are three relevant presumptions of defectiveness – failure by the defendant to produce evidence, breach of safety requirements, obvious malfunction – plus a presumption for cases where the burden of proof is excessively onerous due to technical or scientific complexity. All of these can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The provision for the production of evidence by order of the court is also introduced, which may be sought by either the claimant or the defendant.
