Our last two posts concerned the notion of the consumer in the context of two judgments issued earlier this week (CJEU confirms..., Financial benefits...). Today we would like to draw your attention to an older judgment, which we have not yet had a chance to comment on, C-264/21, Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia. The ruling similarly involves one of the basic concepts of consumer law - this time the concept of the producer.
Facts of the case
The preliminary reference was made by a Finish court in the context of a dispute between an insurer and Koninklijke Philips, a known Dutch corporation offering electronics. The background is unfortunate: a consumer bought a coffee machine and on the following day their house caught fire. The insurer paid for the damage and sought compensation from Philips under product liability law. The defendant argued, however, that it could not be considered a 'producer' of the defective product. While Philips' logo was visible on the product, the packaging also made clear that the coffee machine was manufactured in Romania by Saeco International Group SpA, a Philips subsidiary. Against this background, the referring court expressed its doubts whether the very fact that a person has put his trademark on the product or authorised it to be put on the product is sufficient to qualify that person as a producer, or whether additional criteria must be fulfilled.
No additional conditions required
To recall, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Directive (PLD) a 'producer' is defined as the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of any raw material or the manufacturer of a component part and any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product presents himself as its producer. The Court considered that definition to be formulated in a clear and unambiguous manner, noting that it can also include persons who are not involved in the process of manufacturing (para. 27). Referring to the objective of the directive, namely to protect the consumer, the Court concluded that the producer's definition should be given a broad interpretation (para. 31). By placing the liability of a person who presents himself as a producer on the same level as that of the actual producer, the EU legislature intended to ease the burden of having to determine the actual producer of the defective product (para. 33). Accordingly, it cannot be required that the person who has put his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product, or who has authorised those particulars to be put on the product, also present himself as the producer in some other way in order to be regarded as a 'producer'.
Lessons for online marketplaces?
The conclusion of the Court is not surprising considering the circumstances of the case at hand. Some parts of the reasoning are nevertheless interesting, keeping the broader landscape of market transactions in view. In particular, it is worth drawing attention to para. 34 of the judgment which is formulated as follows:
Furthermore, it should be noted that, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product at issue, the person who presents himself as a producer gives the impression that he is involved in the production process or assumes responsibility for it. Accordingly, by using such particulars, that person is effectively using his reputation in order to make that product more attractive in the eyes of consumers which, in return, justifies his liability being incurred in respect of that use.
The Court therefore acknowledges the importance of reputation in market transactions and links it to liability. This brings to mind other situations in which an involvement of a third party makes products appear more attractive/reliable, as in the case of online marketplaces. Article 6(3) of the Digital Services Act takes account of this very scenario, at least to some extent. Similarly, the potential liability of online marketplace providers has been the subject of discussions concerning product liability. However, the proposal for a new product liability directive, presented last year, provides for platform liability only in a narrow set of cases. It remains to be seen whether that liability will be extended as part of legislative negotiations. The reasoning of the Court in C-264/21, Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia, could arguably support a more daring approach.
