Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in Romania

Romania recognises the following legal grounds for product liability claims:

• contractual liability under the Civil Code, particularly on sales and warranties for hidden defects, as well as for the lack of agreed quality;
• tort liability (fault-based) under the Civil Code for defective products causing damage; 
• statutory strict liability of manufacturers for defective products under Law no. 240/2004 (implementing Directive 85/374/EEC);
• consumer sales and conformity regime (B2C) under Government Emergency Ordinance no. 140/2021 (implementing Directive (EU) 2019/771), setting objective conformity requirements and specific consumer remedies. 

In short, both fault-based (contractual / tortious) and strict liability (under Law no. 240/2004) coexist, alongside the consumer conformity regime (under GEO no. 140/2021).

Under Law no. 240/2004, a “product” is any movable goods, even if incorporated into another movable or into an immovable, including electricity. This Law no. 240/2004 does not expressly include intangible products such as standalone software; traditionally, the concept targets tangible movables (plus electricity). Software and digital content are specifically addressed in consumer law for conformity and remedies, under GEO no. 141/2021 (digital content/services) and GEO no. 140/2021 (goods with digital elements), rather than under Law no. 240/2004’s strict liability. 

There is a practical distinction between consumer products (B2C, governed by GEO no. 140/2021, GEO no. 141/2021, and consumer protection legislation) and business products (B2B, primarily governed by Civil Code and Law no. 240/2004).

In B2C transactions, the mandatory consumer law provisions govern conformity and remedies in addition to any contractual terms. Conformity is measured against both objective and subjective criteria, including proper installation, updates and security for goods with digital elements. If a lack of conformity becomes apparent within one year of delivery, it is presumed to have existed at delivery unless incompatible with the goods or defects. Primary remedies are repair or replacement within a reasonable time without significant inconvenience. Failing that, price reduction or termination applies with costs borne by the seller. In addition, consumer rights are mandatory and any terms derogating to the consumer’s detriment are ineffective.

In B2B transactions, the Civil Code primarily governs offering greater contractual freedom subject to mandatory limits. The seller’s implied warranty for hidden defects applies when defects make the item unfit or substantially diminish its use and remedies include removal of defects, replacement, price reduction, or termination plus damages. General non-performance remedies also apply. Parties may allocate and limit risk, but cannot exclude liability for intent, gross negligence, or bodily injury, nor deprive essential obligations of substance.  

Independently of contractual regimes, manufacturers are strictly liable for damage caused by defective products. A product is defective if it does not provide the safety a person is entitled to expect, considering presentation, reasonably foreseeable use, and time of circulation. Claimants must prove damage, defect, and causation. Recoverable damage includes death/personal injury and certain property damage used for private purposes, subject to conditions. 

However, we expect that the new EU Product Liability Directive will expectedly bring significant changes regarding software. Under the new directive, standalone software - including digital services and AI-based products - will be included in product liability frameworks, thereby expanding the potential liability risks for software producers.

Any person who suffers damage (bodily harm or damages to other goods than the product producing damages) caused by a defective product may bring a claim against the manufacturer under Law no. 240/2004. Contractual and warranty claims may be brought by the buyer against the seller under the Civil Code or, for consumers, under GEO no. 140/2021. Moreover, heirs and legal successors may bring claims stemming from the death of an individual.

Under Law no. 240/2004, recoverable damage includes death and personal injury, and damages to property ordinarily intended for private use or consumption and used by the injured person for such use, subject to statutory conditions and thresholds. In particular, property damage is compensable only to the extent it exceeds a minimum threshold (RON 200 or EUR 500); these thresholds do not apply to death or personal injury. Note that the damages to the defective product itself and to property used for professional purposes falls outside the scope of Law no. 240/2004. 

Romanian law generally allows both pecuniary and non-pecuniary (moral) damages for personal injury/death under the Civil Code. In contractual/warranty claims, damages and contractual remedies apply as per the Civil Code and GEO no. 140/2021, including, where applicable, moral (non-pecuniary) damages under the Civil Code.

A product is defective when it does not provide the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including product presentation, reasonably foreseeable use, and the date of putting into circulation. 

In tort, liability is fault-based. The manufacturer (or other responsible party) is liable if they breach the general duty of care and cause damages. Courts analyse negligent acts/omissions across design, manufacturing, quality control, post-market monitoring/recall, and warnings/instructions (duty to inform). The claimant must prove the wrongful act (including an unsafe condition amounting to a breach of duty), damage, causation, and fault. 

Contractually, a product is defective if it lacks the agreed characteristics or the implied qualities required by the Civil Code, and the seller is also liable for any hidden defects that render the item unfit or substantially diminish its use.

In B2C sales, the objective conformity regime applies: goods must meet subjective and objective conformity requirements. 

As a general rule, the burden of proof lies with the party submitting a claim. Therefore, the claimant bears the burden to prove (1) damage, (2) defect, and (3) causation. 

In tort claims, the burden is heavier: the claimant must prove the (1) damage, (2) defect, (3) causation, as well as (4) fault (negligence or intent).

In contractual / warranty liability, the buyer must prove (1) breach (lack of agreed / required qualities or hidden defects), (2) damage, and (3) causation. The seller’s implied warranty for hidden defects applies when defects render the item unfit or substantially diminish its use.

In B2B, parties enjoy contractual freedom to allocate evidentiary risks and create rebuttable presumptions, provided they do not breach mandatory law, public policy or good-faith limits, and do not amount to clauses excluding liability for intent, gross negligence or bodily injury. On the other hand, in B2C, consumer protections are mandatory. Clauses that derogate from the statutory burden-of-proof presumption to the consumer’s detriment are ineffective. 

In addition, specific presumptions exist in consumer conformity law. Thus, if a lack of conformity becomes apparent within one year from delivery, it is presumed to have existed at delivery unless proven otherwise or unless the presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the defect.

Courts apply the “safety a person is entitled to expect” test, taking into account the product’s presentation (including instructions, warnings, labelling, and marketing), reasonably foreseeable use and foreseeable misuse, and the period of time it was put into circulation. Breaches of mandatory safety rules and standards are highly relevant indicators of a lack of expected safety, while compliance is relevant but not automatically exculpatory given the multifactor assessment. Moreover, if a defect results from compliance with mandatory regulations, this constitutes grounds for release under the law, and the “development risks” defence may apply where the defect could not be discovered given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of circulation. In practice, courts rely heavily on technical evidence (e.g., conformity/CE files, test and batch records, incident reports, recall/corrective action materials), and for products with embedded software, security/firmware issues and update practices may inform the safety expectation analysis where they affect physical safety, while ongoing update obligations are more directly governed by consumer conformity law for B2C sales.

Under Law no. 240/2004, primary liability attaches to the manufacturer, including manufacturers of finished products, manufacturers of raw materials, and manufacturers of components. Importers into the European Union are treated as manufacturers. Any person who presents themselves as manufacturer by putting their name, trademark, or other distinctive sign on the product is also liable. If the manufacturer cannot be identified, each supplier is considered a manufacturer unless they inform the injured person within a reasonable time of the identity of the manufacturer or the person who supplied them.  

Under the Civil Code, liability attaches to the seller of the product.

Liability is typically joint and several when multiple parties (e.g., manufacturer, component manufacturer, importer/own-brander) are responsible for the same damages under Law no. 240/2004 and the general tort rules of the Civil Code. Internally, apportionment is made by way of contribution based on each party’s contribution to the damage (e.g., share of fault, causal role), applying the Civil Code rules on multiple tortfeasors, solidary obligations, and contribution. In practice, the claimant may sue any or all responsible parties. 

Contractual/warranty liability in B2B chains, the buyer’s primary counterparty is the immediate seller. As a rule, the buyer claims contractual remedies against that seller (repair/replacement, price reduction, termination, damages, including for hidden defects). Solidarity among different contractual parties toward the buyer exists only if provided by law or contract, otherwise, the buyer generally cannot enforce contractual warranty directly against upstream suppliers absent a contractual mechanism (e.g., assignment, third-party beneficiary clause, direct guarantee). 

In B2C sales, the party responsible for lack of conformity toward the consumer is the seller. Thus, the consumer’s remedies run against the seller. The seller then benefits from a statutory right of regress against prior parties in the distribution chain (e.g., manufacturer, importer, previous seller) to recover the costs of bringing the goods into conformity or other losses attributable upstream. In other words, there is no consumer-facing solidarity across the chain by default. 

Law no. 240/2004 lists statutory defences, including:

• the defendant did not put the product onto the market;
• the defect that caused the damage did not exist at the time the product was put onto the market or appeared after the product was put onto the market, for reasons not attributable to the manufacturer; 
• the product was neither manufactured for sale or any form of distribution for economic purpose nor manufactured or distributed in the course of the defendant’s business;
• the defect is due to compliance of the product with mandatory regulations issued by public authorities;
• at the time the product was put onto the market, the state of scientific and technical knowledge was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered;
• the defect is due to the consumer's failure to follow the instructions for use provided in the technical documents accompanying the product;
• for component manufacturers: the defect is attributable to the design of the product in which the component has been fitted or to instructions given by the manufacturer of the finished product.

In contractual warranty cases, the seller may avoid liability by proving that the defect did not exist at the time of delivery. The seller may further avoid liability for damages if they can demonstrate that they are not responsible for the breach, i.e., that the defect occurred without fault.

In addition, general defences also apply (e.g., lack of causation, fault of the victim or third parties contributing to damage).

Strict product liability under Law no. 240/2004 cannot be excluded or limited by contract. Such clauses are ineffective as a matter of public policy. The regime is autonomous and strict (no fault requirement), with defences exhaustively listed by statute. Contractual allocations between professionals (indemnities, caps) may only apply to the parties to the contract and do not affect third-party claimants’ statutory rights.

Moreover, in B2C, under GEO no. 140/2021, consumer conformity rights and remedies are mandatory, meaning that any terms affecting the consumer’s detriment is without effect. Unfair terms regulations prohibit clauses that exclude or limit statutory responsibilities toward consumers. Parties cannot contract out of the statutory remedy cascade (repair/replacement, then price reduction/termination).

In contrast, in B2B contracts (Civil Code), parties enjoy broad freedom to limit or allocate liability, but not for damage caused by intent or gross negligence (such clauses are null and void), and not in a way that effectively removes liability for bodily injury or empties essential obligations of substance. Warranty for hidden defects can be tailored by contract, but limits are constrained by good faith and cannot shield bad faith (e.g., where the seller knew or could not reasonably be unaware of the defect). Any valid B2B caps or exclusions bind only the contracting parties and do not bar an injured person’s strict product liability claim under Law no. 240/2004.

Under strict product liability (Law no. 240/2004), the limitation period is three years from when the injured person knew or should have known of the damages, the defect, and the manufacturer’s identity, subject to an absolute 10-year long-stop from the date the product was put into circulation. This regime applies irrespective of whether the damages involve death or personal injury. The 10-year long-stop is a substantive extinction period and is not extended by the fact that the underlying conduct might also constitute a criminal offense.

Under tort claims, the general limitation period is three years from the date the claimant knew or should have known about the damages, as well as the liable person. However, if the wrongful act constitutes a criminal offense, the limitation period follows the (longer) criminal limitation period provided by criminal law, rather than the general three-year civil term. This rule can be relevant in cases of death or bodily injury where the facts also amount to a criminal offense (e.g., involuntary manslaughter). 

Contractual and warranty actions follow the Civil Code and, for B2C sales, GEO no. 140/2021. As a rule, civil claims are subject to the general three-year limitation, running from when the right of action arises (e.g., discovery of hidden defects under the applicable warranty framework or, where a contractual/statutory guarantee applies, from the moment the seller fails/refuses to perform within that guarantee period, as applicable).

Yes. In B2B, the Civil Code implies a seller’s warranty against hidden defects that render the item unfit for its intended use or diminish its use to such an extent that the buyer would not have bought it or would have paid a lower price had they known. It also recognises a good functioning / commercial guarantee where such guarantee is expressly offered by the seller or manufacturer. Note that the commercial guarantee is additional and does not displace the legal warranties.

In B2C, the legal guarantee of conformity under GEO no. 140/2021 imposes objective conformity requirements and remedies independently of fault, functioning as an implied statutory warranty in consumer sales.

Under the Civil Code, the buyer’s main remedies are the removal of defects or replacement, price reduction, or termination. Damages are not automatic in addition to these remedies. As a rule, the buyer may recover additional damages only if the seller knew of the defect (bad faith). Absent such fault, the seller generally owes the return of the price and necessary/useful expenses but not broader consequential damages. 

Under GEO no. 140/2021 (B2C), the primary remedies are repair or replacement within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience; if repair/replacement is impossible or disproportionate, or not performed within a reasonable time, the consumer is entitled to price reduction or termination. 

No. Romanian law is compensatory. Thus, punitive damages are not recognised as such in contract or tort. Damages aim to fully compensate the loss actually suffered, including moral damages where applicable.

Under the Romanian procedural law, each party must produce evidence supporting its claims/defences, and courts can order a party or a third party to produce specific documents identified by the requesting party but only if the requesting party specifically identifies the document and explains its relevance to the dispute and the reason for not being able to produce such evidence itself. Common documents include technical documentation, test reports, conformity/CE documents, instructions/warnings, incident reports, service/repair records, and internal quality/safety records.

Romania does not have a class action system in the traditional sense.

However, Law no. 414/2023 (implementing Directive (EU) 2020/1828) establishes representative actions for the protection of consumers’ collective interests, which can be brought by qualified entities (e.g., the consumer protection authority or designated consumer associations). These actions can seek both injunctive measures (to cease or prohibit infringements) and redress measures (e.g., repair/replacement, price reduction, termination, reimbursement) for breaches of consumer protection law.

For redress, participation is generally opt-in (consumers typically must adhere to benefit by expressing their consent explicitly and in writing), while injunctions do not require prior identification of all affected consumers. Representative actions target violations of consumer legislation (economic loss/non-conformity/unfair practices) rather than personal injury claims under strict product liability; bodily injury/death claims continue to be pursued individually (or via opt-in joinder) in tort/strict liability. 

Outside the representative-action regime, the most common route remains voluntary joinder of multiple claimants (opt-in).

In Romania, product liability lawsuits are typically funded by the claimants themselves. Legal aid may be available to natural persons meeting statutory criteria. 

However, for representative actions, Romanian law provides several mechanisms to facilitate the introduction of representative actions by qualified entities:

• Exemption from court fees: qualified entities that introduce representative actions in accordance with this law are exempt from paying court fees.
• Public funding: the funds necessary for the qualified entities to conduct the procedures related to a representative action can come from public funding, including structural support for qualified entities. 
• Private funding: third-party funding of representative actions is allowed, provided there are no conflicts of interest.

Yes. The general “loser pays” rule applies meaning that the losing party is ordered to pay the reasonable litigation costs of the winning party.  However, it is worth to be noted that courts usually decrease the amount of legal (lawyers’) fees as being unreasonably high.

As to the lawyers’ remuneration, pure quota litis (a lawyer’s fee consisting exclusively of a share of the proceeds) is prohibited, but success fees are permitted in combination with fixed/hourly fees. Therefore, contingent components are permitted only alongside a base fee; pure contingency is not allowed.

High Court Decision no. 525/2025 on COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects 

This Decision’s key finding is that strict product liability under Law no. 240/2004 does not exclude general civil liability. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that manufacturers’ liability for defective products displaces contractual or tort claims, pointing to Article 9 of Law no. 240/2004, which expressly preserves the injured party’s ability to seek compensation under contractual or extracontractual civil liability or another special liability regime. This confirms parallel avenues of recovery may be pursued in product cases (strict liability alongside tort and, where applicable, contract).

Constitutional Court Decision no. 342/2024

The Constitutional Court decided that Article 1391(1) Civil Code is unconstitutional insofar as it limits compensation for “restriction of family and social life” to direct victims. This leads to the possibility of indirect victims (close family members) to also claim moral damages when the direct victim suffers bodily/health injury, subject to proof of their own prejudice and judicial assessment.

Yes, significant legislative reforms are underway in the European Union that will substantially impact product liability laws, particularly concerning emerging technologies such as software, artificial intelligence (AI), and connected devices. The most notable development is the adoption of the new EU Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853), which aims to modernise the existing framework to address the complexities introduced by digitalisation and AI. 

Key Changes introduced by the new EU Product Liability Directive include:

• Expanded Definition of "Product": The directive explicitly includes software (both standalone and integrated), digital files (e.g., for 3D printing), and AI systems within the scope of product liability. This inclusion ensures that defects in digital products can lead to liability claims.
• Recognition of Software Updates and Cybersecurity: Companies can be held liable for damages resulting from missing or inadequate software updates and insufficient cybersecurity measures. This provision underscores the importance of maintaining digital products post-sale.
• Extended Scope of Responsibility: While under the current law, the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer put the product into circulation is decisive, the manufacturer will have to consider later changes if the product remain within its control, which for example is the case if he provides regular software updates for the product.
• Extended Scope of Recoverable Damages: The directive broadens the types of damages to include data loss or corruption, reflecting the value and importance of digital assets.
• Facilitated Evidence Disclosure: Courts may order defendants to disclose relevant evidence under their control when a claimant has presented a reasonable case. This measure aims to address information asymmetry between consumers and manufacturers.
• Adjusted Burden of Proof: In cases involving complex technologies, the directive allows for a presumption of defectiveness and causality if proving these elements is excessively difficult for the claimant, provided that the defect and the causal link are likely.
• Extended Limitation Periods: The long-stop period for bringing claims is extended from 10 to 25 years in cases involving latent personal injuries, acknowledging that some harm may manifest long after product use.

These reforms are particularly pertinent to sectors involving AI and digital products. Manufacturers and developers of AI systems must now consider the potential for liability arising from algorithmic decisions, lack of transparency, and the need for ongoing updates and monitoring.

EU Member States are required to transpose the new Product Liability Directive into national law by 9 December 2026.