Under EU Law, namely Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (hereinafter “GDPR”) and the pending entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directive 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (hereinafter “AIA”), the use of sensitive data (including medical data) for AI training would only be possible after obtaining consent, in cases specified by law, or when using anonymized data. AIA is not a lex specialis vis-à-vis the GDPR, so when using personally identifiable data, using data for AI model training requires meeting the requirements of both acts.
On October 23, 2024, the European Union adopted new regulations on liability for defective products in the form of Directive 2024/2853 (entered into force on November 18, 2024). Ultimately, the new regulations are intended to ensure a higher level of safety for consumers’ health and property and guarantee them appropriate compensation. Furthermore, the preamble to the act anticipates the need to facilitate innovation and research, and recognizes the upcoming challenges related to the growing popularity of digital services. However, this does not mean that the previous EU legal act on this matter (Directive 85/374/EEC of July 25, 1985) will automatically become null and void, as the new regulations stipulate that it will continue to apply to defective products placed on the market or put into service before its repeal date (December 9, 2026). What other changes has the new directive introduced?
A characteristic of consumer transactions is the inequality of parties. Generally, the entrepreneur has a stronger position than the consumer. Practice and experience show that the entrepreneur will dictate the terms of the contract, including price, warranty terms, delivery time and location, and payment method. This places the entrepreneur in a stronger position vis-à-vis the consumer, who is often forced to comply. This can pose a threat when the entrepreneur exploits their dominant position to impose unfair terms on the consumer, to which the consumer will be forced to adapt.
