JAPAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Shingo Yamada, Yugo Komori, Yasuhiro Akita and Yusei Kanehara, Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners
taking into account not only generative AI but also AI agents and physical AI. Among the various guidelines, particular attention has been given to those addressing the appropriate approach to cybersecurity, such as the Cybersecu - rity Management Guideline. On 25 March 2025, the operation of the Labelling Scheme based on Japan Cyber-Security Technical Assessment Requirements (JC-STAR) began, which addresses cybersecurity for IoT devices. On 27 March 2026, the Guideline on Technical Measures for Ensuring AI Security was also issued, which specifically addresses the need to In Japan, the Product Liability Act came into effect on 1 July 1995. Since then, whilst there has been certain discussion of developments, such as the pro - posal of amendments by the PL Ombudsman Confer - ence in 2015, the Product Liability Act has remained unchanged for approximately 30 years, with the sole exception of amendments to the statute of limitations. However, in recent years, in light of the remarkable advancement of AI technologies, including autono - mous driving systems, as well as the expansion of product liability following the comprehensive revi - sion of the Product Liability Directive in the European Union, discussions in Japan concerning the appropri - ate framework for product liability have become more active than ever before. The Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) has conducted research and hearings about the contents and impact of the new Product Liability Directive in the European Union on the Product Liability Act in Japan. METI also examined issues on civil liability in relation to AI and issued the Guideline on the Interpretation and Appli - cation of Civil Liability in the Use of AI on 9 April 2026. Although the deliberations conducted by the CAA and METI encompass a broad range of issues relating to product liability, the following sections provide an explanation of the discussions and future prospects concerning particularly significant issues relating to the scope of application of product liability, namely: ensure AI security. Product Liability Overview
• the scope of business operators (eg, a DPF pro - vider); • the scope of products (eg, software); and • relevant point in time (eg, post-market liability). DPF provider Under Japanese product liability law, a DPF provider that merely provides a marketplace is not included among the persons subject to liability and does not incur liability for damages under the Product Liability Act. Nevertheless, even where the Act does not apply, it is conceivable that a DPF provider may, in certain circumstances, be held liable for damages where a product with a safety issue is listed on a DPF and a consumer suffers harm as a result of purchasing it. In recent years, a number of court decisions in Japan have addressed the obligations of DPF providers in relation to products listed on their platforms. Specifically, there is a court decision holding that, where a report is received alleging that counterfeit goods are being listed as genuine products, the DPF provider is under a duty to investigate the report and, if it proves to be accurate, to remove the counterfeit goods from the platform. There is another decision holding that where a DPF provider knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that products infringing trade mark rights were being listed, and failed to remove such products within a reasonable period, the provider is liable for trade mark infringement. By contrast, in a case involving a mobile battery listed on a DPF that caught fire after purchase, the court held that the DPF provider was under no duty to examine the safety of the listed products. On the basis of these decisions, it may be considered that a DPF provider does not necessarily incur liability for damage suffered by a purchaser simply because a product with a safety issue was listed and sold on the platform. On the other hand, where a DPF provider had specific knowledge of the risk associated with the product – for example, where it was aware that the product was subject to a recall, or had received a request from regulatory authorities to remove the
208 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook