Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in Sweden

Product liability under Swedish law is primarily regulated by the Product Liability Act (1992:18) (“PLA”) which is based on Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for products with safety defects (“the Directive on product liability”). 

The PLA imposes strict liability for damages caused by a safety defect in the product. Therefore, the right to compensation presupposes establishing that the product failed in terms of safety and that this defect caused the damage. The PLA covers claims for personal injury and damage to consumer property, as defined in Section 1 of the Act, but not claims for damages to the defective product itself. 

Claims for damage caused by products may also be brought under general grounds of contractual or non-contractual liability grounds. 

In consumer cases involving contracts, the Consumer Sales of Goods Act (2022:260) provides for liability with respect to property damage suffered by consumers. Under the Consumer Sales of Goods Act, the decisive factor for product liability is whether the purchased goods differ from what was agreed by the parties.

The Sale of Goods Act (1990:931) contains liability provisions that may apply to contractual relationships between businesses, unless otherwise agreed. Liability for damages under the Sale of Goods Act does not include compensation for loss incurred by the buyer through damage to anything other than the goods sold. Product liability may also follow from applicable contractual provisions. 

There are also a number of legislative acts that impose liability for damage or injury caused by the provision of specific products and services, such as electricity and nuclear activities. 

Claims based on non-contractual liability may also be brought under the Tort Liability Act (1972:207) (“TLA”) which covers liability for personal injury and property damage caused by the tortfeasor's negligence or intent. Liability for property damage under the TLA is not restricted to damage to consumer property. 

The term “products” as used in Section 2 of the PLA refers to movable objects. Here, the term “movable object” is used in its established legal sense, meaning any type of physical object that can be moved, including gases and liquids. All such objects are covered, regardless of how they are manufactured or intended to be used. In the preparatory work for the Act, it has been common practice to distinguish between three types of products: industrial, craft and natural. The PLA covers damage caused by all three types of products. Conversely, the Act does not apply to damage caused by real property.

However, if a product has been incorporated into, or otherwise become a component of, another movable property or real property, it shall still be considered a separate product within the meaning of the Act. If damage occurs as a result of a safety defect in a product that is a component of another product, both products are considered to have caused the damage.

Movable property that is not also classed as a movable object is not considered a product within the meaning of the PLA. This includes patents and other rights, as well as securities, for example. Therefore, damage caused by such property does not entail strict liability under the Act. Unlike hardware, computer software is an intellectual creation, not a tangible object, and is therefore not generally covered by the definition of a product in the PLA. However, it cannot be ruled out that a fault in a computer programme could result in product liability if the programme is an integral part of the computer and necessary for it to function.

The new Directive on product liability,  Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for products with safety defects and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC (“the new Directive on product liability”) extends liability to include standalone software, such as computer or smartphone applications, and artificial intelligence (please see the answer to question 21 below). 

The PLA does not establish a fundamental distinction between consumer and business products in terms of the definition of a product itself. However, according to Section 1 of the PLA, property damage is only compensable if the damaged property is normally intended for private use and the injured party was using the property primarily for private use at the time of the damage.

Any individual who has suffered loss as a result of a defective product can pursue claims under the PLA.

The provisions of the TLA are important when applying the PLA because they set out additional rules for matters not covered by the PLA. These include the rules for determining damages in Chapter 5, as well as the adjustment rule in Section 2 of Chapter 6.

The rules on how damages are to be determined in cases of personal injury are set out in Chapter 5, Sections 1–5 of the TLA. If a personal injury has resulted in death, the first paragraph of Chapter 5, Section 2 of the TLA stipulates that compensation shall be paid for funeral expenses and other reasonable expenses resulting from the death, as well as for loss of maintenance and personal injury caused to someone who was particularly close to the deceased as a result of the death.

In other respects, the main rule of Swedish compensation law is that third parties who suffer loss only indirectly as a result of an injury are not entitled to damages.

Claims under warranty provisions may typically be pursued by the original contracting party. 

Compensation under Section 1 of the PLA is paid for personal injury and, subject to certain limitations, for property damage. Therefore, strict liability under the PLA does not cover compensation for pure financial loss, i.e. financial loss that occurs without personal injury or property damage being sustained. Non-pecuniary components of personal injury (pain and suffering) are compensable under Swedish law and are determined under Chapter 5 of the TLA.

In Swedish law, the term “safety defect” (Sw: säkerhetsbrist) has the same meaning as the term “defect” defined in Article 6 of the Directive on product liability.

According to the definition in Section 3 of the PLA, a product has a safety defect if it is not as safe as could reasonably be expected. The safety of a product is assessed based on how it could reasonably be expected to be used and marketed, as well as the instructions for use, the date on which the product was placed on the market, and other circumstances. 

Under Swedish tort law, the general principle is that a person claiming compensation must prove their entitlement to the claim. When applying the PLA, this general principle means that a person claiming compensation for damage caused by a product must prove that they have suffered personal injury or property damage for which compensation can be obtained; that the product in question has a safety defect for which the defendant is responsible; and that the safety defect caused the damage.

In product liability cases it is the injured party who has the burden of proof. As previously described, they must prove that they have suffered a personal injury or property damage for which compensation can be obtained; that there is a safety defect in a product for which the defendant is responsible; and that the safety defect caused the damage.

There is no statutory reversal of the burden of proof under the PLA; however, courts may apply evidentiary presumptions in limited circumstances, and forthcoming Swedish legislation implementing Directive (EU) 2024/2853 will introduce express presumptions in certain cases.

However, if the injured party has fulfilled their burden of proof, the manufacturer, importer or distributor must, in order to avoid liability, provide counterevidence in accordance with Section 8 of the PLA. 

In order to avoid liability for damages Section 8 of the PLA stipulates that the manufacturer, importer or distributor must be able to prove one of the following: 

1. that he did not place the product on the market in the course of his business, 
2. that the safety defect did not exist when he placed the product on the market, 
3. that the safety defect was due to the fact that the product had to comply with mandatory regulations issued by a public authority, or 
4. that, based on the scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he placed the product on the market, it was not possible to detect the safety defect.

According to Section 3 of the PLA, the safety of a product must be assessed based on how it is or could reasonably be expected to be used and marketed, as well as the instructions for use, the date on which the product was placed on the market, and any other relevant circumstances.

To determine whether a safety defect has occurred, an overall assessment must be conducted. This assessment is independent and therefore not subject to standardisation requirements or special permits from specific authorities. In other words, the trader is solely responsible for their product. Therefore, a product may have a safety defect even if it complies with the minimum requirements set by an authority. Conversely, if a product does not comply with regulatory requirements or safety standards, this could indicate that it does not meet the expected level of safety and is therefore defective. 

However, according to Section 8 of the PLA, exemption from liability for damages may apply if it can be proven that the safety defect is due to the product having to comply with mandatory regulations issued by an authority.

According to Section 6, first paragraph, point 1 of the PLA, it is primarily the manufacturer of a product that is strictly liable for any damage caused by a safety defect in the product. Manufacturers' liability applies to anyone who has manufactured, produced, or collected the harmful product and can therefore affect all stages of a product's manufacture. However, a prerequisite for liability at each stage is that the safety defect that caused the damage arose in the product before it left that stage.

Section 6, first paragraph, points 2 and 3 of the PLA expand the circle of those liable for damages to include those who import a product for distribution. 

Section 6, first paragraph, point 4 of the PLA also includes those who claim to have manufactured the product without having done so.

More than one party may be liable for the same product damage. When two or more parties are liable for the same damage, Chapter 6, Section 4 of the TLA stipulates that they are jointly and severally liable to the injured party. This means that the injured party can claim compensation from any of the liable parties, who are then obliged to pay the full amount. 

However, in certain cases, joint and several liability may be limited, for example due to the rules of reasonableness in Chapter 2, Sections 4 and 5, or the adjustment rule in Chapter 6, Section 2 of the TLA. In such cases, the injured party may claim compensation from the other jointly and severally liable parties up to the full value of the damage.

Swedish law does not contain any general legal rules on how joint and several liability should ultimately be apportioned between several parties liable for damages, and the legal situation is unclear. In cases where all parties with joint and several liability bear strict product liability; it is common for there to be a contractual relationship between them. If the agreement regulates how product liability is to be apportioned, it will, in principle, apply. Otherwise, the general principle is that liability should be apportioned according to what is reasonable. 

When making an assessment of how such liability is to be apportioned, the basis of the parties' liability is taken into account. A person who is liable due to negligence is more likely to be held responsible for compensation than a person who is liable under strict liability rules. Furthermore, consideration is given to whether any of the responsible parties has caused the damage to a significant extent. Unless other circumstances indicate otherwise, it is generally assumed that liability should be shared equally between the parties.

Section 8 of the PLA states that a defendant cannot be held liable for damages if the defendant:

1. shows that they did not place the product on the market as part of a business activity;
2. makes it probable that the safety defect did not exist when he placed the product on the market;
3. shows that the safety defect is due to the product having to comply with mandatory regulations issued by an authority; or
4. demonstrates that, based on the scientific and technical knowledge available at the time the product was put into circulation, it was impossible to detect the safety defect.

The PLA also stipulates that the claimant's compensation may be reduced if they have contributed to the injury or damage. In this respect, the defendant may use contributory negligence as a defence. 

Lastly, the defendant may invoke a systematic defect defence. To succeed, the defendant must demonstrate that society is aware of and accepts the risk of damage associated with the product, as is the case with tobacco products.

The Swedish compensation law system includes several special laws on damages that apply in the event of product damage. Whether these laws apply alongside the PLA, or are exclusive to it, cannot be answered in general terms; the circumstances must be examined separately for each law.

The PLA only regulates its relationship with one of these special laws. According to Section 4 of the PLA, the Act does not apply to damage covered by the Act (2010:950) on liability and compensation in the event of radiological accidents.

The PLA contains no provisions regarding its relationship with other special laws on damages. Therefore, nothing in the PLA prevents other tort rules from being applied to damage that falls within its scope. Whether this is possible must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the wording of these other special laws on damages.

According to Section 5 of the PLA, any contractual terms that limit liability under this Act are invalid. Agreements that are not permitted are those entered into before the damage occurred. In principle, agreements whereby the injured party waives their rights under the PLA, entered into after the occurrence of damage, are permitted, but they may be subject to invalidity or adjustment in accordance with the general rules of contract law.

According to the first paragraph of Section 12 of the PLA, the injured party must submit their claim for compensation within three years of becoming aware, or of having reason to be aware, that they could assert a claim for damages. In order to assert the claim, the injured party must be aware of the following three conditions:

1. the damage;
2.  the safety defect in the product; and
3. the responsible party against whom the claim is to be directed. 

All three conditions must be met for the limitation period to begin.

According to the second paragraph of Section 12 of the PLA, the limitation period is ten years, calculated from the date on which the harmful product was placed on the market by the responsible party. This refers to the specific product that caused the damage in question, rather than to the date when a particular type of product or a particular year's production of the product first came onto the market.

The limitation rules in Section 12 of the PLA apply to all claims for compensation under the PLA, including recourse claims under Section 11.

Alongside the culpa rule under the TLA, warranty arguments have played a significant role in product liability under Swedish law, particularly prior to the introduction of the PLA. If the seller guarantees that a product has, or does not have, a certain characteristic, they are liable for the accuracy of their statement, regardless of whether they were negligent when providing the guarantee. Furthermore, according to case law, a party to a contract may be held strictly liable if their actions lead the other party to believe that the product is suitable for a particular purpose. This conduct has been interpreted as a tacit guarantee that the product would not have harmful properties (see, for example, the court cases NJA 1945 p. 676 and NJA 1968 p. 285).

In the court case NJA 1985 p. 641, the Supreme Court stated that a consumer who is provided with a product without having any practical opportunity to examine it must often rely on information from the person providing the product. Against this background, the court ruled that a declaration of the content or properties of the goods can in many cases be given the same effect as if it were a guarantee concerning the harmlessness of the goods.

Before the new sales laws came into force, the courts sometimes stipulated strict liability even in cases where there had been no express warranty, but where a warranty commitment was interpreted in other statements (see, for example, NJA 1968 p. 285 and NJA 1985 p. 641). In a later case (NJA 2001 p. 309), the Supreme Court also held a supplier liable for product damage when it must have been clear to him that the buyer wanted a product that was free from a certain harmful characteristic and the supplier undertook to deliver just such a product.

According to Chapter 5, Sections 4–11 of the Consumer Sales of Goods Act, if a product is defective according to the provisions of Chapter 4, Section 5, a consumer has the right to demand rectification, replacement, a price reduction or compensation to remedy the defect, or to cancel the purchase. Additionally, the consumer may claim damages in accordance with Chapter 6. They may also withhold payment in accordance with Chapter 5, Section 3.

Similar remedies may be imposed under the Sale of Goods Act in contractual relationships between traders, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act stipulates that, in the event of a defect in goods covered by the Act, the buyer may demand rectification, replacement delivery or a price reduction, or cancel the purchase and claim damages. The buyer may also withhold payment in accordance with Section 42.

In the event of a breach of warranty, the penalties specified in the warranty terms and conditions shall apply. 

Swedish tort law is based on the principle of full compensation for suffering or financial loss. Damages are intended to remedy the harm caused.

In principle, punitive damages, where the damages exceed the actual loss for punitive purposes, do not exist in Swedish law.

The Product Liability Act does not contain any rules on the disclosure of evidence. 

However, the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure contains provisions on the obligation to produce written evidence (known as “edition”) or to provide objects for inspection or examination (known as “exhibition”). If the requested document contains confidential information or trade secrets, this information can be exempt from disclosure. 

In practice, parties often seek or produce technical and conformity documentation, design and testing records, user manuals and warnings, incident and complaint logs, field safety corrective action and recall documentation, internal risk analyses, and communications with market surveillance authorities.

Yes, the Group Proceedings Act (2002:599) introduced the possibility of bringing group proceedings. These proceedings can be initiated by representative bodies, including trade unions, consumer organisations, government authorities and NGOs, as well as individuals. 

Group proceedings are open to any self-defined group of individuals with a shared claim. The Group Proceedings Act is based on an 'opt-in' mechanism – to become a member of a group, an individual must register with the group within a specified timeframe. Only the group representative is deemed to be the claimant party. Consequently, group members are not considered parties to the proceedings, although the judgement carries legal force for all members of the class. 

Since the end of 2023, the Act (2023:730) on class actions to protect the collective interests of consumers has been in force. This Act contains rules on the approval of entities that can bring legal action for injunctions and compensation (e.g. damages) on behalf of a group of consumers. The new Act has a broad scope and covers marketing, contract terms, financial services, transport, pharmaceuticals, data protection and energy, among other things. In several respects, the new Act builds on what was previously set out in the Group Proceedings Act (2002:599), among others.

Group proceedings are not commonly brought in Sweden. Only a few cases are brought before the courts each year. This is probably because Sweden has a relatively comprehensive system for protecting consumers from business irregularities, in the form of protective legislation and supervisory authorities. Consequently, the need to take legal action to hold companies accountable is lower than in other countries.

In Sweden, product liability lawsuits are typically funded by the claimants themselves or through their legal assistance insurance, which is a common means of covering litigation costs in consumer and commercial disputes. Legal assistance insurance is often included in home insurance and business insurance policies and covers necessary and reasonable costs for legal representation, costs for pre-trial investigations ordered by your representative, and costs for evidence in court and arbitration proceedings.

Under Swedish law there are no restrictions for third party funding (“TPF”) of claims. In practice, as mentioned above, insurance companies will often fund the parties’ legal costs and expenses throughout the proceedings. 

Although there is no explicit prohibition against TPF in Sweden, there is currently no developed market for this form of financing. Nevertheless, TPF has been used in international arbitration proceedings based in Sweden. In TPF arrangements, the financier usually requires the litigating attorneys to take financial risks in the same way as the financier, for example by receiving remuneration that is dependent on the outcome of the proceedings. According to the Swedish guidelines on good legal practice, such agreements — referred to in the guidelines as “risk agreements” — are considered inappropriate.

Yes, as a general rule, the losing party must reimburse the successful party for all legal fees and expenses. However, if the losing party disputes the amount when presented with the bill at the end of the main trial, the court may scrutinise the successful party’s fees. 

Specific rules apply to claims not exceeding half of the so-called “base amount'” according to the Social Insurance Act (2011:110), which, in 2026, is SEK 29,600. The base amount is updated annually.

For such claims, there are limitations on the amount that the successful party can recover from the losing party. 

As for contingency fees or success-based remuneration, these are generally prohibited in Sweden. According to the Swedish guidelines on good legal practice, risk agreements, whereby legal representatives take a financial risk in relation to the outcome of the proceedings, are considered inappropriate. 

One type of risk agreement, known as a quota agreement, in which the representative is paid a share of the outcome of the proceedings, is not permissible unless there are special reasons. According to the commentary on the Swedish guidelines on good legal practice, special reasons may exist in cases where the Group Proceedings Act (2002:599) applies, in cross-border assignments where such an agreement is intended for handling outside Sweden and is a prerequisite for the assignment, and in cases where the client would have difficulty having their case tried in court without a quota agreement (access to justice).

A summary of the three most recent Supreme Court cases in the area of product liability can be found below.

In NJA 2023 p. 916, individuals brought a case against a municipal company to establish liability for personal injury damages resulting from elevated levels of PFAS in their blood due to PFAS in municipal drinking water. The Supreme Court ruled that the individuals had suffered personal injury in the sense of tort law due to the elevated levels of PFAS in their blood.

NJA 2020 p. 807 addresses the relationship between product liability for electricity under the Electrical Safety Act and other strict liability for damage caused by electricity. Strict liability for damage caused by the effects of electricity has been deemed to exist after the transfer of harmful electricity to the owner of a high-voltage installation (Section 28 of the Electrical Safety Act). Product liability for safety deficiencies in electricity under Section 29 of the Electrical Safety Act does not preclude liability for damages under Section 28 of the Electrical Safety Act for the same damage.

In NJA 2018 p. 475 it was established that a municipal company's supply of water under the Public Water Services Act (2006:5412) is covered by the PLA. The Supreme Court emphasised that the term “movable objects” covers all types of physical objects, primarily industrially manufactured goods. The manner in which the product was manufactured was not decisive. Drinking water was deemed a product under the PLA, and the provisions of the Public Water Services Act did not prevent the injured party from basing their claim on the PLA.

As mentioned above, the existing EU rules on product liability, which formed the basis of the currently applicable Product Liability Act (1992:18), have been replaced by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for products with safety defects and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC. 

The new Directive on product liability aims to adapt the regulatory framework to technological developments and the digital economy. It also seeks to create a better balance between businesses, consumers, and other injured parties. 

EU Member states are required to transpose the new Directive on product liability into national law by 9 December 2026. 

In summary, the following amendments have been proposed for inclusion in a new product liability act (“the new Act”) to implement the new Directive on product liability in Swedish law. 

• To ensure more comprehensive protection of consumers and other individuals, strict liability for physical products will be expanded to also include stand-alone software (e.g. an application for a computer or smartphone, or a programme providing artificial intelligence). As consumers in the present day are making products on their own (e.g. by using 3D printers), product liability will also be introduced for manufacturing files that enable production with automated machines and tools. 
• To reflect the increased prevalence of intellectual property and increased value of such assets, product liability under the new Act will also apply to damage to data used exclusively for the personal use of the injured party. As it is common in the present day for individuals to use a product for both private and professional purposes, it is also proposed that damage to such property be covered by the right to damages under the new Act.
• Unlike what applies under the PLA, no deductible for personal injuries will apply under the new Act, corresponding to the new Directive on product liability.
• Compared to the PLA, the new Act contains more detailed rules regarding what circumstances should be considered when assessing whether a product has a safety defect. The development of assessment criteria means, inter alia, that the link between rules on product safety and rules on product liability will become clearer. It also clarifies liability in cases where the safety of a product is affected by other products, which becomes relevant for products intended to be used together, such as in a smart home system. Furthermore, the proposals mean that the rules will better meet individual product users’ legitimate expectations for an AI system to be designed in a way that prevents dangerous product behaviour.
• To adapt product liability rules to today’s global supply chains, the scope of liability will be expanded to also include manufacturers’ authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers. The proposals will make it possible, in more cases than before, for a person who has suffered damage caused by a product manufactured in a third country to bring a claim for damages against a trader established in the European Economic Area (EEA). 
• In the case of anonymous products, the scope of liability will be extended to include, under certain conditions, providers of online platforms that allow the conclusion of distance contracts. This will reduce the risk of an injured party losing the right to damages as a result of inability to determine who is liable for a given product.
• In the present day, products often contain digital components, such as software and digital services, that are necessary for the product to function. To reflect this situation, clearer rules on product liability for such components are proposed. The proposals include for product liability under the new Act to apply to software placed on the market as a stand-alone product, in contrast to the PLA.
• The transition to a circular economy requires products to be more durable over time. The new Act therefore proposes clearer rules on liability for products whose characteristics have been substantially altered by repairs, upgrades or other modifications. The proposals include rules on who is responsible for such a product and the division of responsibility between the manufacturer of the original product and that of the modified product.
• Compared to the PLA, the new Act contains more detailed rules on exemption from liability. It also contains rules on exemption from liability in certain cases for component manufacturers.
• Unlike the PLA, liability under the new Act applies to certain safety defects that have occurred after a product has been placed on the market.
• The new Act contains rules stating that, in certain cases, it should be presumed that a product has a safety defect or that there is a causal link between a safety defect and damage in a product liability dispute. 
• New rules on the right of recourse are introduced in the new Act. These rules constitute a codification of the general principles of recourse that apply in product liability cases according to established practice and thus do not differ from what applies under tort law in general. 
• Under the new Act, an extended ultimate statutory limitation period will apply to latent personal injury, which is a new feature compared to the PLA. The proposal means that an injured party will not lose out on damages for personal injury if they are prevented from bringing a claim on time due to the nature of the injury.

The new Act will come into force in Sweden on 9 December 2026.