Transposition Time Updates – Nordic Trio: Denmark, Finland, and Sweden Progress Towards New EU Product Liability Directive Implementation

This is the fourth of a series of articles in which we update on progress of the transposition of the new EU Product Liability Directive ("new PLD”).  By way of reminder, EU Member States have until 9 December 2026 to transpose the new PLD into their national law, and Northern Ireland also has to implement the new PLD by 9 December 2026.  This piece discusses updates from three Nordic jurisdictions—Denmark, Finland, and Sweden—each of which has progressed their transposition measures.

Update on Transposition Measures – Denmark

In Denmark, the Ministry of Justice published a draft Product Liability Act for consultation on 9 January 2026, which closed on 6 February 2026.  The draft Act will be a new, standalone piece of legislation implementing the new PLD, replacing the current Danish Product Liability Act.  The new Act is expected to enter into force on 9 December 2026.

Denmark's draft closely tracks the new PLD in most respects, including scope, definitions, compensable damage categories, liable economic operators, evidentiary presumptions, and limitation periods.  Denmark’s draft includes retention of the Development Risk Defence; the Ministry of Justice assessed that the exemption from liability ensures the right balance between consumer rights and innovation considerations, and that opting out would ensure consistency with the legal position in the vast majority of other EU countries.

One notable national feature is Denmark's proposal to maintain its existing rules on distributor liability and responsibility within the framework of the Directive.  Under these rules, once the injured party has proved defect/damage/causal link, then the burden of proof shifts to the distributor who must prove that it did not make the product dangerous through its handling of the product and that the damage is not due to a defect that it should have discovered.  This means that a distributor must compensate for product damage unless the distributor can prove that the damage was not caused by its fault or negligence.  In addition, distributors are directly liable to the injured party for product damage to the extent that the damage is due to fault or negligence on the part of the manufacturer or previous distributors in the supply chain.  Denmark considers these rules to fall outside the scope of the new PLD's total harmonisation provisions, relying on Article 2(4)(b) of the new PLD, which preserves national rules on non-contractual liability for reasons other than the defect in a product as defined in the Directive.

Update on Transposition Measures – Finland

Finland's legislative project to implement the new PLD is in its early stages. The Ministry of Justice's Working Group, tasked with preparing provisions for implementation, published a report containing a draft law on 2 February 2026.  This report is open for consultation until 16 March 2026, with the implementing legislation proposed to enter into force on 9 December 2026.

Finland proposes no change to its approach on the Development Risk Defence.  Importantly, this means Finland would continue not to apply the Development Risk Defence as an exemption from liability—the opposite position to other EU Member States so far.  Finland originally chose not to adopt the defence when implementing the 1985 Product Liability Directive, meaning manufacturers in Finland have faced broader strict liability for product damage, including unforeseeable safety defects, for nearly four decades.  Finland intends to make use of the Article 18 derogation under the new PLD to maintain this stricter liability regime.

The Finnish Working Group's report acknowledges the arguments in favour of introducing the Development Risk Defence, including potential impacts on innovation and insurance costs.  However, the report concludes that evidence of the effects of allowing the defence on innovation is uncertain, and that practical experience in Finland does not support concerns that insurers would refuse to cover unknown risks or that SMEs would be forced to withdraw from risky areas.  The report emphasises that consumer protection is at the heart of the product liability system and that the Development Risk Defence would create a significant gap whereby, in the most unexpected damage situations, consumers could be left without any compensation at all.  The Finnish position therefore represents a clear policy choice to prioritise consumer protection over potential innovation incentives.

Update on Transposition Progression – Sweden

Following the investigator's report published in October 2025 proposing a new Product Liability Act to replace Sweden's current 1992 Product Liability Act, a consultation was open to relevant authorities, organisations, and stakeholders, which closed on 9 January 2026.  The government will next prepare a draft bill, which may then be submitted to Parliament for decision, with the government's proposal expected in autumn 2026.

Sweden's proposed Product Liability Act is close in form and content to the new PLD and retains the Development Risk Defence.  The Swedish report takes the view that the provision on development risk can be considered an important factor in terms of the stability of liability insurance costs for European industry, enabling businesses to allocate resources to research rather than insurance.  The report considers that prohibiting the Development Risk Defence could, in the worst case, make it difficult for high-tech, risk-prone companies to insure themselves against development risks, constituting a direct obstacle to innovation and development.  The report further notes that development risks associated with medicines in Sweden are in practice always covered by the national pharmaceutical insurance system (Läkemedelsförsäkringen), as more than 99% of medicines sold in Sweden are covered by this insurance.

The new Swedish Product Liability Act will not directly incorporate the new PLD's provisions on disclosure of evidence, burden of proof, and standard of proof because these matters are already addressed in other Swedish procedural law.  One clarification in the Swedish draft concerns the presumptions under the new PLD Article 10(4):  the draft clarifies that, to trigger the presumptions for both defect and causation, the Claimant must make both "likely," not just one or the other. Additionally, electricity remains regulated in Sweden's Electrical Safety Act, which is being amended to align terminology and content with the new PLD.

Conclusion

The Nordic jurisdictions are now well underway with their transposition of the new PLD, though each reflects different national policy choices.  Denmark and Sweden both retain the Development Risk Defence, aligning so far with the other EU Member States who have published draft legislation, while Finland maintains its longstanding stricter approach by declining to offer manufacturers this exemption. Denmark's decision to preserve its unique distributor liability rules demonstrates how Member States may maintain certain national features within the framework of total harmonisation, provided those rules operate outside the scope of the Directive's strict "defect" liability.

Given Member States have only ten months remaining to implement the new PLD into national law, we expect continued activity across the jurisdictions in the coming months.

Thank you to Borenius Attorneys Ltd (Finland), CMS Wistrand (Sweden), and Kromann Reumert (Denmark) for their assistance with transposition updates for their individual jurisdictions.