Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, there are several primary legal grounds for bringing product liability claims:

The first one is the general hypothesis of unlawful damage (tort) regulated by Article 45 et seq. of the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA). According to it, everyone is obliged to repair the damage he has culpably caused to another person.

The second legal basis is again regulated in OCA but the liability arises from default of a contractual obligation (contract), unlike the tort under Article 45, where the liability is non-contractual. Under these general rules, the seller shall be liable if the sold product has defects which significantly reduce its price or its ability for such use as is usual or is prescribed in the contract. The seller is not liable for defects which were known to the buyer at the time of sale. The seller shall also be liable when he was unaware of the defect. An agreement discharging him shall be invalid.

Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) producers, distributors, and retailers are liable for damage caused by a defect in goods manufactured or delivered by them. The producer’s liability is strict (no‑fault), and the manufacturer is liable for damage caused by a defect in its product, regardless of whether it is at fault for the defect. This law specifically covers personal injury, death, and damage to private property exceeding EUR 500 when the property is intended primarily for personal use and has been used by the injured party for its intended purpose.

The last legal basis is under the Act on the Supply of Digital Content and Digital Services and the Sale of Goods (ASDCDSSG), that regulates the sale of goods concluded between sellers and consumers, in particular the requirements concerning the conformity of goods, the consumer remedies in the event of lack of conformity, the modalities for the exercise of those remedies and the commercial guarantees. The liability is strict and the seller is liable when the goods do not meet the individual requirements for conformity with the contract, the objective requirements for conformity, and the requirements for assembly or installation of the goods.

Under CPA, Section IV "Liability for Damage Caused by a Defective Product", which applies to the liability of producers, distributors and traders for any damage caused by a defective product produced or supplied thereby, contains a definition of "product" in Art. 130, para. 2. According to this provision, "product" shall be any movable item, even if incorporated into another movable or immovable item, including the following agricultural raw materials and products which have not undergone primary processing or handling: agricultural crops, livestock products and raw materials, hunting and fishing. "Product" shall include electricity.

The definition in the CPA’s Supplementary Provisions refers to the terminology used in the ASDCDSSG, where “product” encompasses any goods or services, including immovable property, digital content, digital services, as well as rights and obligations. Within this framework, “good” is described as: (i) any movable tangible item, goods, water, gas, and electricity, when offered for sale, packaged in a limited volume or in a specified quantity or (ii) any movable tangible item that contains digital content or a digital service or is interlinked with digital content or a digital service in such a way that the absence of the digital content or digital service would prevent the goods from performing their functions. Service shall be any physical or intellectual activity which is performed independently, is intended for another person, and whose principal object is not the transfer of possession of a property item.

Under Bulgarian law, there is no explicit distinction between consumer and business products, however there is a distinction in the regulations. CPA and ASDCDSSG regulate the sale of products to consumers only. Consumers benefit from enhanced statutory protection and mandatory rights, which cannot be contractually waived in advance. By contrast, in B2B transactions, the parties enjoy broader contractual autonomy and may, within statutory limits, modify or exclude warranty and liability regimes through individual contractual arrangements.

Under CPA, each natural person who has suffered property damage due to a defect in goods may pursue a claim and should prove the damage, the defect and the causal link between them. 

Bulgarian procedural law, and in particular the Civil Procedure Code, provides for two scenarios in which the claims may be pursued by their legal heirs: 

1. when the person has died during pending proceedings, and 
2. when the person has died before filing their claim. 

Contractual claims under warranty provisions may typically be pursued by the original contracting party or their legal successors, including heirs.

Compensation under CPA is due for material and non-material damages caused by death, personal injury or damage or destruction of an item other than the defective goods, worth no less than EUR 500, where the item is intended primarily for personal use and has been used by the injured party for its intended purpose. 

Consumer remedies under ASDCDSSG does not include non-material losses and are limited to the conformity of the goods with the contract and with the objective requirements for conformity of the goods. Under the ASDCDSSG, in the event of a contractual breach, the buyer may: 

1. make a claim and request that the seller bring the goods into conformity; 
2. receive a proportional price reduction; or 
3. terminate the contract.

Liability may also be sought on a contractual basis. In that case the creditor has the right to demand performance together with compensation for the delay or to demand compensation for non-performance. Under the OCA, in the event of a contractual breach, the buyer may return the item and request a refund of the purchase price and sale costs; retain the item and request a price reduction; or have the seller remedy the defects at their own expense.

According to OCA each person may claim non-material losses, which are determined by the court in accordance with the principles of equity. This encompasses medical costs, loss of income, property damage, and pain and suffering.

The definition of “defective” goods according to CPA refers to the cases, when it does not meet generally accepted expectations for normal use, taking into account all circumstances related to:

1. the presentation of the goods in terms of the following elements: quality, quantity, name, type, composition, origin, durability, distinctive features, normal and possible use of the goods, advertising of the goods and information provided about them and 
2. the moment the goods are put into circulation.

To succeed with a claim under the CPA, the claimant must prove that

1. the product was defective as defined above, 
2. the defect caused damage, and 
3. there is a causal link between the defect and the specific injury or property loss. Fault is not required.

In tort law, according to OCA “defective” product is not defined, but is referred to the compensation as such is due for all damages that are a direct and immediate consequence of the tort.

Again, in OCA on a contractual basis according to art.193 OCA, defective is described as item, that has defects that significantly reduce its price or its suitability for normal or contractual intended use. The creditor may demand actual performance of the obligation undertaken, as well as compensation for loss and lost profits, provided these are a direct and immediate consequence of the nonperformance and could have been foreseen when the obligation arose. The debtor is not liable if the impossibility of performance is due to reasons beyond his fault.

In Bulgarian product liability cases, the claimant generally bears the burden of proof for the existence of a defect, the damage suffered, and the causal link between the two. The specific requirements and potential for burden shifting depend on the legal basis of the claim.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, liability is strict. The injured party does not need to prove fault on the part of the producer. However, the claimant must still demonstrate:

1. the existence of a defect in the product; 
2. the damage suffered; and
3. the causal link between the defect and the damage. 

In tort, the burden of proof is allocated differently. While the claimant must prove the wrongful act, the damage, and causation, fault is presumed by law. This means that once the claimant establishes these elements, the defendant bears the burden of disproving fault, i.e., demonstrating that they acted with due care or that the damage resulted from circumstances beyond their control. This presumption of fault represents a significant advantage for claimants compared to strict liability regimes where no fault element exists at all.

In contractual claims based on product defects or inconsistency under the OCA, the buyer generally bears the burden of proving that the defect existed and that it significantly reduces the product's value or its suitability for normal or contractually intended use. Conversely, the seller may discharge liability by proving that the buyer was aware of the defects at the time of sale or that the defect arose after the transfer of risk.

In consumer sales, the CPA provides enhanced protection. If a defect becomes apparent within one year from delivery, it is presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless the seller proves otherwise or unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the defect.

The case law usually assesses if a product is defective in accordance to the definitions in the CPA, which regulates that the goods are defective when they do not meet the generally accepted expectations for normal use. For an objective assessment, all circumstances related to the following must be taken into account: 

1. the presentation of the goods in terms of the following elements: quality, quantity, name, type, composition, origin, durability, distinctive features, usual and possible use of the goods, advertising of the goods and information provided about them, and 
2. the moment the goods are put into circulation. 

The goods are not considered defective for the sole reason that other goods with better performance characteristics have subsequently been put into circulation.

Liability may arise under the CPA, tort law, or contractual provisions under the OCA.

Under the CPA, the responsibility for the defects lies with:

1. the manufacturer, 
2. the person who brought the goods into the territory of the European Union, or when they cannot be found,
3. the responsibility lies with each distributor or retailer of the goods, if it fails to provide information on the name and address of the manufacturer, importer, or person who delivered the goods within 14 days.

In tort law, the responsibility lies with the person/legal entity who committed the unlawful act.

In contractual relations, responsibility lies solely with the parties to the contract. The buyer may assert warranty claims directly against the party with whom the contract was concluded, even if the defect originated further up the supply chain.

In CPA and in tort law, when two or more persons are liable for the same damage, their liability is solidary.

Under OCA, solidarity between two or more debtors arises only if expressly agreed, except in cases provided for by law

The main admissible objections by the under Bulgarian law in relation to liability under CPA are:

• absence of defect, by proving that the goods meet the generally accepted expectations for normal use;
• lack of causal link between the damage incurred and the defect;
• the manufacturer proves that he has not put the goods into circulation;
• the defect causing the damage did not exist at the time the manufacturer put the goods into circulation, or the defect appeared subsequently;
• has not produced the goods for sale or other form of distribution for commercial purposes and has not produced or distributed the goods within the scope of his professional activity;
• the defect is due to the conformity of the goods with mandatory requirements laid down by public authorities;
• the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the goods were put into circulation did not allow the defect to be detected;
• absence of damages subject to compensation;
• objection on the grounds of expiry of the limitation period.

In tort law, the objections may be:

• absence of fault;
• absence of a causal link - may claim that the damage was caused by other factors unrelated to his conduct;
• absence of harm - if there is no actual pecuniary or non-pecuniary harm, liability does not arise;
• force majeure event;
• prescription period.

In contractual claims, the objections may be:

• if the creditor has been in default, has not cooperated, has refused acceptance, etc.
• no causal link between the non-performance and the damage - The creditor must prove that the damage resulted specifically from the non-performance;
• absence of fault;
• force majeure event;
• prescription period.

According to CPA, the manufacturer's liability for defects in its goods may be excluded or reduced when the damage is caused simultaneously by the defective goods and the actions of the injured person or a person for whom they are responsible.

Any clause limiting or reducing the manufacturer's liability to the injured party is considered null and void.

In tort law, liability for intentional conduct cannot, in principle, be excluded neither contractually or by statue.

In contractual relations under the OCA, the parties have more freedom to restrict or exclude certain liabilities. Yet, some legal restrictions cannot be limited or excluded, like the ones for gross negligence or clauses that are contrary to good morals. In addition, the liability of the seller may not be excluded also in the following situations:

• since the seller is liable even if they were unaware of the defect, any agreement that excludes or limits this liability is invalid;
• any agreement excluding the seller’s liability has no effect if the seller concealed third‑party rights that were known to him.

For claims under the CPA, а claim for compensation for damage caused by a defect in goods may be brought within three years from the date on which the claimant became aware or should have become aware of the damage, the defect, and the identity of the manufacturer. Regardless of the suspension/interruption of the limitation period, the rights of the damaged party shall expire 10 years after the date on which the manufacturer placed the goods that caused the damage on the market, unless the damaged party has brought an action against the manufacturer in the meantime.

Under the CPA, after accepting the item, the buyer must inspect it and immediately notify the seller of the defects found. The buyer's claims expire six months after the sale of movable property. If the seller has knowingly concealed the defect, the period is three years. The period runs from the transfer of the property.

The buyer’s product liability claims under OCA shall expire after one year in the case of the sale of real estate and after six months in the case of the sale of movable property. If the seller has knowingly concealed the defect, the period shall be three years. The period may be extended or shortened by agreement between the parties. The period shall run from the date of delivery of the item.

In consumer contexts, claims about defective products frequently intersect with the consumer's statutory "legal guarantee of conformity" and any commercial guarantees, which the trader must flag pre-contractually. These operate as implied and/or statutory warranty baselines in addition to any express warranties.

The CPA requires traders to remind consumers of the existence of the legal guarantee for goods, digital content, and digital services, and to inform them about after-sales services and commercial guarantees where applicable. Since 1 January 2022, detailed conformity and remedies rules for sales of goods and supply of digital content/services are primarily governed by the ASDCDSSG, to which the CPA expressly refers for consumer sales and digital supplies. Under the ASDCDSSG, the seller is liable when the goods do not meet the individual requirements for conformity with the contract, the objective requirements for conformity, and the requirements for assembly or installation of the goods.

In addition, general product presentation and safety rules under the CPA such as information duties of traders, presentation of the products/services, and warnings also shape reasonable consumer expectations and can inform "defect" arguments and contractual liability analysis.

For consumer services, the CPA states that, if the service is non-conforming, the consumer is entitled to have the service brought into conformity. Where this is impossible/unlawful or disproportionate, the consumer is entitled to a price reduction (for partial performance) or to rescind the contract with reimbursement. The CPA also regulates complaint handling and requires traders to accept and register complaints and to issue an acknowledgement.

For consumer sales of goods and for digital content/digital services, the specific conformity rules – repair, replacement, price reduction, rescission, and time-based presumptions – are laid down in the ASDCDSSG. In the event of a lack of conformity, the buyer may: 

1. make a claim and request that the seller bring the goods into conformity; 
2. receive a proportional price reduction; or 
3. terminate the contract. 

The consumer has the right to choose between repair and replacement, unless the chosen remedy would be impossible or, compared to the other remedy, would impose costs on the seller that would be disproportionate given the value of the goods, the significance of the non-conformity, and whether the alternative remedy could be provided without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Adjacent Consumer Protection Act rules on delivery and passing of risk give additional rights where delivery is delayed or not effected, such as setting an additional period and rescission if non-delivery persists. These can be relevant when defective or non-delivered items are in issue alongside conformity remedies. Additionally, unfair terms law prevents contractual clauses that limit or exclude mandatory consumer rights or shift burdens improperly, ensuring warranty remedies cannot be undermined by standard terms.

Under the OCA, in the event of a contractual breach, the buyer may return the item and request a refund of the purchase price and sale costs; retain the item and request a price reduction; or have the seller remedy the defects at their own expense. The creditor has the right to demand performance together with compensation for the delay or to demand compensation for non-performance.

Bulgarian consumer and product-liability statutes provide compensatory remedies (including, where applicable, non-material damages) and do not provide for punitive or exemplary damages. The CPA's product-liability chapter lists compensable harm (death, personal injury, and certain property damage above a monetary threshold) and preserves routes to compensation for non-material damages "according to the standard procedure," but contains no basis for punitive multipliers or exemplary awards. Non-material damages under the OCA are determined by the court in accordance with the principles of equity, but these encompass compensation for pain and suffering rather than punitive measures.

Bulgarian law provides for limited and specific rules on document disclosure in litigation, including product liability cases. Unlike common law jurisdictions, Bulgaria does not recognise broad pre-trial disclosure or discovery. Instead, disclosure is regulated based on party initiative and judicial discretion.

Under the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code, each party must submit the evidence on which it relies together with its pleadings. The court may, upon a party's request, order the opposing party or third parties to produce specific documents if the requesting party identifies the document and explains its relevance to the dispute. Fishing expeditions or blanket disclosure requests are not permitted.

In product liability cases, commonly requested or submitted documents include:

• Technical specifications and design documentation;
• Test and safety reports, including internal quality control records;
• User manuals, packaging, and warnings (relevant for presentation defects);
• Compliance documents, such as CE certifications or declarations of conformity;
• Internal communications or reports on prior incidents, recalls, or known risks (if known to exist).

If the product was manufactured abroad, access to such documents may be complicated by cross-border evidence rules, including the Hague Evidence Convention, if applicable.

Yes. Bulgaria provides a statutory class action mechanism in the Civil Procedure Code, allowing actions on behalf of persons harmed by the same infringement where the group is indeterminate but identifiable. Under the Civil Procedure Code, a collective action may be brought on behalf of persons harmed by one infringement when, according to the nature of the infringement, their number cannot be determined precisely but is determinable.

The action can seek declaratory relief (wrongfulness, fault), cessation, rectification, and compensation for harmed collective interests; the court supervises publicity, opt-in participation, and protective measures, and the judgment binds the infringer in favour of included persons. Persons who claim to have been harmed by an infringement, or an organisation for the protection of harmed persons or for protection against such infringements, may bring a claim on behalf of all harmed persons against the infringer.

For consumer matters, the CPA expressly empowers accredited consumer associations (qualified organisations) to bring collective injunction and compensation actions to protect collective consumer interests, and it directs that such actions are to be conducted under the CCP's class action chapter. This is the principal pathway for collective redress in consumer/product contexts.

The mechanism functions as an opt-in system: harmed individuals may join the proceedings following public notification of the action. Qualified organisations under the CPA may bring representative actions for: 

• cessation or prohibition of practices that infringe collective interests; and 
• remedies such as compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination, or reimbursement of the price paid. 

A final act of a judicial or administrative authority of an EU Member State ordering cessation or prohibition of a practice infringing collective consumer interests is binding on all courts and authorities, including in individual and representative actions for remedies.

Product liability lawsuits in Bulgaria are typically funded by the claimant through their own resources. In addition, legal aid may be available to natural persons who lack the means to pay legal costs, subject to a means test under the Legal Aid Act.

Third-party litigation funding is not expressly prohibited under Bulgarian law, but neither is it specifically regulated. There is no dedicated statutory framework governing third-party funding arrangements. The general principles of contract law under the OCA would apply to any such funding agreements. Consumer associations bringing collective actions must disclose their sources of funding and must be independent from traders who have an economic interest in bringing a representative action, including where funding is provided by a third party.

In practice, third-party litigation funding remains uncommon in Bulgaria, and product liability litigation is predominantly financed through traditional means – either self-funding or, in the case of collective actions, funding by consumer organisations.

Yes. Under Bulgarian law, the general rule is that the losing party bears the litigation costs of the successful party. The Civil Procedure Code provides that the court awards the costs to the successful party, including court fees, costs for expert opinions, witness expenses, and attorney's fees. However, recovery of attorney's fees is limited to a "reasonable amount" as determined by the court, taking into account the complexity of the case and the minimum tariff rates established by the Bar Association.

Regarding contingency fee arrangements, Bulgarian law does not expressly prohibit success-based fee arrangements between lawyers and clients. The Attorneys Act and the applicable ethical rules permit fee agreements that include success-based elements, although pure "no win, no fee" arrangements are less common than in common law jurisdictions. Any such arrangements must comply with ethical standards and cannot involve the lawyer acquiring a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.

Cost uplifts in the sense of success fees that are recoverable from the losing party (as known in some common law jurisdictions) are not recognised under Bulgarian law. Only reasonable attorney's fees as determined by reference to statutory minimum tariffs are recoverable from the losing party.

Product liability litigation remains relatively limited in Bulgaria, and there have been no landmark product liability decisions from the Bulgarian courts within the past 12 months that have significantly altered the existing legal framework. 

In practice, disputes involving allegedly defective products continue to be resolved predominantly through individual claims, administrative enforcement, or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than through precedent‑setting court judgments.

A significant portion of product‑related disputes is addressed outside the court system by the Commission for Consumer Protection (CCP). The CCP actively investigates consumer complaints concerning defective goods, misleading product information, and non‑compliance with conformity obligations. Its enforcement activity includes the issuance of mandatory instructions, administrative sanctions, and fines against traders and producers, and it plays a central role in shaping market behaviour in practice.

Furthermore, consumer disputes involving defective goods or digital content are frequently referred to the general and sector‑specific conciliation commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act. These bodies provide an accessible and relatively efficient forum for resolving low‑ and medium‑value disputes, which further limits the number of product liability cases reaching the higher courts.

Yes. Although no standalone national reform of Bulgarian product liability law is currently underway, significant legislative developments at the European Union level are expected to have a substantial impact on the Bulgarian legal framework in the near future, particularly in relation to emerging technologies.

As an EU Member State Bulgaria will be required to transpose and implement forthcoming EU initiatives aimed at modernising product liability rules to reflect technological developments such as software‑based products, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, connected devices, and digital ecosystems. These initiatives are intended to address gaps in the traditional product liability regime, which was originally designed primarily for tangible goods. 

At national level, these EU‑driven reforms are likely to result in adjustments to the Consumer Protection Act and related legislation, including clarifications on the allocation of liability among manufacturers, software developers, importers, and distributors, as well as on evidentiary rules and burden‑of‑proof issues in complex technological cases.