Sweden's Government has asked the Riksdag to adopt a new Product Liability Act that would cover AI systems and standalone software from 1 January 2027

Key takeaways

• This is a bill, not an act. The Government proposes entry into force on 1 January 2027, subject to the Riksdag.
• The commentary says strict liability would apply to "AI-system, applikationer och andra datorprogram".
• Under the draft, damage to property used only for professional purposes, and data loss outside personal use, would fall outside the damages rule.
• The old 1992 act would continue to apply to products placed on the market before the new act enters into force.

What did the Swedish Government propose, and is it law yet?

The Government signed Prop. 2026/27:12 in Stockholm on 15 October 2026 and submitted it to the Riksdag. The bill's summary says it proposes a new product liability act because connected products have become more common and some are not covered by the current rules. Its first proposal for the Riksdag is that it adopts the Government's proposal for a product liability act (section 1, our translation). Nothing in the bill makes it law on its own. The summary says the proposals build on a new EU product liability directive, which our article on the EU directive covers at EU level.

Does the bill cover AI systems and standalone software?

Yes, according to the bill's commentary. The summary says liability would extend from physical products to also include standalone software (our translation). The commentary on the product definition in section 3 of the draft act goes further and states that the strict liability under the act applies to, among others, AI systems, applications and other computer programs. In Swedish: "det strikta skadeståndsansvaret enligt lagen gäller för bl.a. AI-system, applikationer och andra datorprogram". It adds that software counts as a product whether it is stored on a device or reached through a network or cloud technology, and says this includes software-as-a-service. The draft act itself excludes free and open-source software that is neither developed nor supplied in the course of a business (chapter 1, section 1).

That wording appears in the explanatory commentary, not in the proposed statutory provisions. The draft statute itself defines a product as a movable item or software and does not mention AI. A court would apply the statute, with the commentary as an aid to interpretation.

Who counts as the manufacturer, and what damage would be compensated?

The draft act defines the manufacturer as whoever makes, produces or develops a product, has it made or designed, or presents itself as the manufacturer. The commentary on that definition says a manufacturer also includes whoever develops software, and "Det inbegriper leverantörer av AI-system" within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Where the manufacturer is established outside the EEA, the draft (chapter 3, section 1) would also make an importer of the product or component and the manufacturer's representative liable. A provider of distribution (fulfilment) services would be liable only if the manufacturer is established outside the EEA and there is neither an importer nor a representative of the manufacturer established in the EEA. A component manufacturer would be liable where a defect in the product stems from a defect in its component and the component was integrated within that manufacturer's control.

The right to damages in the draft covers personal injury, damage to property that was not used exclusively for professional purposes, and pure financial loss from the loss or corruption of data used exclusively for personal purposes. The bill says the new directive has no deductible for property damage, so the deductible in the 1992 act would not be carried over. The act concerns harm to natural persons. Property compensation does not cover damage to the defective product itself, or damage to a product that a defective component was integrated into or connected with within the manufacturer's control (chapter 2, section 2). Personal injury is covered without a private-use condition; the professional-use and personal-use conditions in the draft apply to the property-damage and data-loss heads.

How would a claimant prove a defect in an AI system?

The draft eases proof in several ways, all subject to the defendant showing otherwise. A product would be treated as defective if it fails safety requirements aimed at the harm, if the damage came from an obvious malfunction in normal or reasonably foreseeable use, if the defendant ignores a court order to produce evidence, or if the claimant makes a defect probable and full proof is not possible or only with particular difficulty. Causation is eased in the same way. The commentary gives AI systems as an example: a claimant who relies on the presumption does not have to explain the system's specific characteristics, or how they make a defect harder to establish, and is not expected to explain an AI system's inner workings.

The bill does not add new disclosure rules. In section 6.7 the Government assesses that Swedish procedural law already meets the directive's requirements on producing documents and objects for inspection, so no legislative change is needed there.

When would it take effect, and what happens to older products?

The Government proposes entry into force on 1 January 2027: "Den nya produktansvarslagen och lagändringarna ska träda i kraft den 1 januari 2027." The 1992 act would then cease to apply, except that it would remain applicable to products placed on the market or put into service before the new act enters into force. The bill explains that the EU directive requires Member States to bring the rules into force by 9 December 2026 and that the Government considers 1 January 2027 the earliest possible date. The draft transitional test turns on whether a product was placed on the market or put into service before the new act enters into force, not on a software release date. We did not verify how that test would apply to updates of software already in use.

Key dates at a glance

What should AI vendors, insurers and litigators do now?

The bill sets no compliance duty for anyone yet. In our reading, these are sensible first checks, not requirements of the bill:

• List the software and AI products you supply to users in Sweden, and note which damage heads could be relevant, given the personal-injury, property-damage and data-loss conditions above.
• Check how you document updates and upgrades, since safety is assessed as at the time a product was placed on the market or put into service or, where the manufacturer keeps control, the time it last had that control or the time of the injury, if that comes first (chapter 2, section 4).
• Insurers may review product and professional cover wording for software and data-loss claims once the final text is known.
• Litigators may track how courts use the probability-based presumptions for complex technology.

For the wider Swedish picture see our note on Sweden's law complementing the AI Act.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the regeringen.se page for Prop. 2026/27:12 and the full PDF of the bill, including the summary, the draft act in section 2.1, sections 6.3, 6.6 and 6.7, the commentary in section 12.1 and the entry-into-force section, on 25 October 2026 UTC.

What we did not open: the EU directive text itself, the committee report SOU 2025:103, the Council on Legislation (Lagradet) opinion in appendix 7, the consultation responses, the Riksdag's own site, and any press release. We did not check the stage of the Riksdag process. Quotations are from the Swedish original and the English paraphrases are ours.

What we refuse to claim: that the bill is enacted, that its commentary binds a court, that it adds AI-specific duties beyond product liability, or any effect on business-to-business claims beyond what the draft text says.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• Europe AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• EU Product Liability Directive and software, including AI
• Sweden: law complementing the EU AI Act
• Germany: AI Act implementing act and BaFin supervision
• EIOPA opinion on AI governance for insurers