Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Product Liability & Safety 2026 Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editor Rod Freeman Cooley LLP
Global Practice Guides
Product Liability & Safety
Contributing Editor Rod Freeman Cooley LLP
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Rod Freeman, Cooley LLP p.5
GREECE Law and Practice p.150 Contributed by Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP Trends and Developments p.162 Contributed by Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners LLP
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice p.9 Contributed by Clayton Utz Trends and Developments p.27 Contributed by Clayton Utz AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.32 Contributed by EUSTACCHIO Trends and Developments p.41 Contributed by EUSTACCHIO CANADA Law and Practice p.46 Contributed by Torys LLP Trends and Developments p.68 Contributed by INF LLP CHINA Law and Practice p.75 Contributed by King & Wood
HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Law and Practice p.168 Contributed by Gordon Chan
INDONESIA Trends and Developments p.183 Contributed by Assegaf Hamzah & Partners JAPAN Law and Practice p.189 Contributed by Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners Trends and Developments p.205 Contributed by Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.211 Contributed by Claims Made Advocatuur
PUERTO RICO Law and Practice p.226 Contributed by Ferraiuoli LLC SPAIN Law and Practice p.238 Contributed by Faus Moliner
DENMARK Law and Practice p.91 Contributed by Kennedys
Trends and Developments p.99 Contributed by Kromann Reumert EU Trends and Developments p.103 Contributed by Freshfields FINLAND Law and Practice p.110 Contributed by Ruoholahti Law Trends and Developments p.122 Contributed by Ruoholahti Law FRANCE Law and Practice p.127 Contributed by LexCase Trends and Developments p.144 Contributed by LexCase
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.254
Contributed by Walder Wyss Ltd Trends and Developments p.270 Contributed by Walder Wyss Ltd
TÜRKIYE Law and Practice p.277 Contributed by Akin Legal UK Law and Practice p.288
Contributed by Fletchers Solicitors Trends and Developments p.306 Contributed by Fletchers Solicitors
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
USA Law and Practice p.311 Contributed by Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C. Trends and Developments p.327 Contributed by BakerHostetler USA – ARKANSAS Trends and Developments p.333 Contributed by Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP
USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.339 Contributed by Buchalter, LLP
USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments p.347 Contributed by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments p.352 Contributed by Carroll & Weiss USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments p.356 Contributed by Johnson & Bell Ltd
USA – NEW JERSEY Trends and Developments p.361 Contributed by Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP
4 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Rod Freeman, Cooley LLP
Cooley LLP is an international law firm with its roots in Silicon Valley and a reputation for being the lead - ing firm for the world’s most innovative companies. Its renowned international product liability and safety team has market-leading experience in managing
regulatory investigations, litigation, product recalls, risk assessments and international compliance in complex, fast-moving and highly regulated industries including life sciences, cosmetics and consumer products.
Contributing Editor
Rod Freeman is an international products lawyer at Cooley LLP with more than 30 years’ experience supporting the world’s leading and most innovative companies. He is a recognised global leader in this field,
providing clients unique insights into the international liability and regulatory landscape, and has an instinct for finding practical solutions for international companies. With a background in high-stakes product liability litigation, Rod understands the challenges faced by companies in an increasingly risky global environment. He is deeply embedded in the product liability and product safety community internationally, often working with policymakers within Europe and around the world to help shape the future of product liability and product safety regulation.
Cooley LLP 22 Bishopsgate London EC2N 4BQ UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7583 4055 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7785 9355 Email: rfreeman@cooley.com Web: www.cooley.com
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Rod Freeman, Cooley LLP
Modern Product Liability – Global Risks and Challenges Product liability and safety regulation is undergoing a significant transformation. Across jurisdictions, com - panies are facing a more complex, fast-moving and fragmented regulatory environment, driven by rapid technological change, the growth of e-commerce and new business models, and the increasing pri - oritisation of circular economy and sustainability objectives. Together, these forces are reshaping what “product liability” means in practice, extending risks and responsibilities well beyond traditional notions of product safety. Legal regimes are expanding in scope, complexity and reach, cutting across multiple policy areas and enforcement fronts. In recent years, long-running debates have crystallised into concrete reforms, requiring businesses to track and implement new requirements across multiple – and sometimes incon - sistent – jurisdictions, often before guidance or stand - ards are available. These reforms increasingly affect multiple functions within an organisation, complicat - ing prioritisation and resource allocation, while the consequences of non-compliance continue to inten - sify, driving heightened litigation and enforcement risk. Mounting pressure on regulators – combined with growing calls from governments and stakeholders for regulatory simplification – has led to last-minute delays, amendments and, in some cases, rollbacks of recent reforms. While measures intended to ease compliance burdens are often welcome in principle, their late introduction has frequently generated uncer - tainty and resulted in avoidable sunk costs for busi - nesses. Many companies are now recognising that legacy approaches to managing global product liability risk are no longer sufficient. As regulatory change acceler - ates and traditional principles give way to new mod - els, the ability to anticipate emerging trends – particu - larly for products still in development – has become critical to protecting investment, maintaining market access and managing risk sustainably. This guide is designed to support that challenge. It examines the key trends shaping product liability and
safety regulation globally and provides jurisdiction- specific analysis to help companies navigate the evolving landscape. New Technologies Front and Centre Core concepts that have underpinned product safety and liability regimes for decades are being funda - mentally reshaped. Legal frameworks are expanding beyond traditional physical products to encompass digital services and standalone software, and beyond risks of physical injury and property damage to include mental health harms. Liability is also increas - ingly extending to cybersecurity vulnerabilities, soft - ware updates (or their absence), connectivity failures and AI-driven functionalities, opening up new routes to claims. Regulatory and litigation scrutiny of digital services and digital harms is expected to intensify. New regimes such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, alongside measures including Aus - tralia’s social media age restrictions, are sharpening focus on digital product design, platform accountabil - ity and user protection. In the USA, addiction-related litigation is gathering momentum, with some plaintiff firms characterising this as social media’s “tobacco moment”. E-Commerce in the Spotlight Many major markets have introduced reforms to address evolving marketing and distribution models, particularly the growing role of online marketplaces. However, the scale, speed and complexity of mod - ern e-commerce – together with increasingly diverse online sales models – continue to fuel debate over whether existing regulatory frameworks go far enough. Policy and enforcement attention on e-commerce is expected to intensify as jurisdictions reassess cur - rent regimes and develop new approaches. Alongside formal regulation, some authorities are promoting vol - untary initiatives, such as the European Commission’s Product Safety Pledge+, which has had international influence and been endorsed by the OECD. At the same time, online marketplaces are increasingly being assigned a quasi-regulatory role, with enhanced obli - gations in some jurisdictions to monitor compliance,
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Rod Freeman, Cooley LLP
report safety incidents, and co-operate more closely with regulators. Trade Tariffs, Geopolitical Tensions and Product Safety Escalating trade tariffs and geopolitical tensions can materially increase product safety risk. Rapid shifts to alternative suppliers, new sourcing markets, or reconfigured supply chains – often undertaken at speed – can introduce new quality, compliance and safety vulnerabilities. As a result, companies are under growing pressure to balance cost and market access objectives against the need to maintain robust prod - uct safety governance and oversight across increas - ingly complex and dynamic supply chains. Consumer Rights Activism Consumer activism continues to intensify, with increasing scrutiny of right-to-repair practices, pre - mature obsolescence, sustainability claims, subscrip - tion models and inadequate consumer disclosures. Expanded transparency obligations and regulatory reporting are generating richer data sets, making it easier for consumers, NGOs and claimant groups to identify and challenge practices perceived as unfair or misleading. ESG: Changing the Landscape In parallel, sustainability and ESG regulation is reshap - ing corporate risk through legally binding require - ments focused on transparency, traceability and due diligence across the full product life cycle – from design and manufacture to use and end‑of‑life. As well as new obligations to integrate sustainability con - siderations into product design, companies are under growing pressure to identify, address and communi - cate on the environmental and human rights impacts of their business models through formal disclosures and direct regulatory engagement, including with cus - toms authorities. This regulatory expansion is materi - ally increasing liability exposure, both for underlying impacts and for misstatements or gaps in ESG‑related communications, enforced through public action and stakeholder‑led claims. PFAS The regulatory and litigation landscape around PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is evolving
rapidly. In the EU, recent reforms have introduced upcoming PFAS restrictions for certain products (such as toys and food packaging), and the proposal for a near-universal EU-level PFAS restriction remains under consideration. A few EU member states have moved ahead with national measures rather than wait- ing for EU-wide action. In the USA, state-level regu - lation is intensifying in parallel with PFAS mass tort litigation. Companies across a wide range of sectors – from consumer products and textiles to electronics and food packaging – are facing increasing pressure to identify and eliminate PFAS from products and sup - ply chains, with significant liability exposure arising from both legacy contamination and ongoing use. The Move Towards Digital Compliance Requirements for product information and customs procedures are becoming increasingly digitised. One example is the EU’s new framework for Digital Product Passports (DPP) to electronically register, process and share certain product-related information amongst supply chain businesses, authorities and consumers. This will be complemented by the EU Customs Data Hub, a single EU-wide system replacing approximate - ly 111 national IT systems currently used by member states. Described as one of the largest digital data collections in Europe, the Data Hub is intended to support more targeted, intelligence-led enforcement through data analytics and AI, while providing a com - prehensive overview of trade flows and supply chains. It will also introduce new reporting channels, allowing authorities, businesses and consumers to flag goods that fail to comply with EU legislation applied by cus - toms authorities. Beyond regulatory compliance systems, companies are also increasingly deploying digital solutions and AI applications within their own internal processes – from product design and quality assurance to supply chain management. The associated risks need to be under - stood and mitigated to reduce potential liability, espe - cially where these tools inform high-impact decisions affecting product safety or regulatory compliance. Continued Drive for Increased Enforcement Enforcement of product safety rules remains uneven globally, but the overall direction of travel – particularly in Europe – is towards significantly stronger and more
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Rod Freeman, Cooley LLP
co-ordinated enforcement. The EU is increasingly moving away from fragmented national approaches, with enhanced EU-level powers for oversight, co- ordination and enforcement under regimes such as the Digital Services Act, the AI Act and the Customs Reform package. Further initiatives under discussion include the possible creation of an EU-level market surveillance authority and the conferral of investigative and enforcement powers on the European Commis - sion in consumer law cases. In parallel, enforcement models are expanding beyond public authorities, with greater use of private enforcement mechanisms – for example through the EU Representative Actions Directive – empowering consumers to bring claims more effectively. The UK is consulting on a once-in-a-generation reform of product safety regulation and enforcement. The proposals would consolidate enforcement powers currently spread across more than 70 pieces of legis - lation into a single toolkit and reduce reliance on crimi - nal sanctions in favour of a broader, more flexible suite of civil penalties. These would include the ability for regulators to impose civil monetary penalties directly, accept enforcement undertakings, and require public admissions of fault or compensation, alongside new cost recovery powers and enhanced information shar - ing mechanisms. Raising the Global Baseline The international co-operation landscape is continuing to evolve. Some jurisdictions benefit from enhanced co-operation through established networks, such as the Organisation of American States’ Consumer Safety and Health Network, which brings together consumer safety authorities from 21 participating countries to share information, expertise and best practices. In December 2025, the United Nations General Assem - bly adopted the first-ever UN Principles for Consumer
Product Safety, affirming the right of all consumers to safe, non-hazardous products, including when sold online. The Principles emphasise businesses’ pri - mary responsibility across the product life cycle and seek to strengthen public authorities’ ability to assess risks, order recalls, remove unsafe listings and share safety alerts across borders, within a flexible, non- trade-restrictive and sustainability-aligned framework. Influenced by the EU’s General Product Safety Regu - lation, this marks a significant milestone in the global product safety landscape and is expected to shape the development of national regimes, particularly in jurisdictions seeking to introduce or strengthen base - line protections. Resources for Managing Changing Risks The growing complexity of product law, combined with the speed and scale of regulatory change, pre - sents significant challenges for manufacturers and suppliers operating globally. The costs of failing to anticipate and manage these risks can be severe, as many high-profile brands have discovered in recent years. At the same time, these developments also create opportunities. Clear, proportionate rules – supported by more active enforcement – can help level the play - ing field and provide greater market stability for com - pliant businesses. For companies with strong brands and customer trust to protect, effective regulation can play an important role in safeguarding investment and managing risk. The challenge is therefore practical: staying ahead of change, understanding its implications and build - ing systems that are resilient over time. This guide, authored by leading practitioners worldwide, is intended to form part of the toolkit to help companies do just that.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy Clayton Utz
Australia
Sydney
Tasmania
Contents 1. Product Safety p.11 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework p.11
1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety p.11 1.3 Obligations to Commence Corrective Action p.12 1.4 Obligations to Notify Regulatory Authorities p.13 1.5 Penalties for Breach of Product Safety Obligations p.14 2. Product Liability p.16 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law p.16
2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims p.17 2.3 Time Limits for Product Liability Claims p.18 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims p.18 2.5 Pre-Action Procedures and Requirements for Product Liability Claims p.18 2.6 Rules for Preservation of Evidence in Product Liability Claims p.19 2.7 Rules for Disclosure of Documents in Product Liability Cases p.20 2.8 Rules for Expert Evidence in Product Liability Cases p.20 2.9 Burden of Proof in Product Liability Cases p.21 2.10 Courts in Which Product Liability Claims Are Brought p.21 2.11 Appeal Mechanisms for Product Liability Claims p.21 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims p.21 2.13 The Impact of Regulatory Compliance on Product Liability Claims p.22 2.14 Rules for Payment of Costs in Product Liability Claims p.22 2.15 Available Funding in Product Liability Claims p.23 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co-Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims p.23 2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims p.24 3. Recent Policy Changes and Outlook p.25 3.1 Trends in Product Liability and Product Safety Policy p.25 3.2 Future Policy in Product Liability and Product Safety p.26
9 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
Clayton Utz is an independent Australian firm estab - lished in 1833. It has nearly 200 partners and 1,400 employees across six offices, as well as one of the largest commercial litigation practices in Australia, including a specialist six-partner product safety and product liability team. The firm handles the most complex, significant and high-profile matters for cli -
ents, including many of Australia’s top financial in - stitutions, multinational corporations operating in a range of sectors, and state and Australian govern - ment departments and agencies. Clayton Utz is also a global leader in pro bono, with one of the largest pro bono practices of any law firm outside the USA.
Authors
Greg Williams is the national practice group leader of commercial litigation at Clayton Utz. He is a highly regarded lawyer who specialises in
Alexandra Rose is a leading practitioner in the product liability arena and has a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the defence of large-scale high-stakes litigation across product liability, class actions,
class actions, product liability litigation and product regulatory advice. Greg’s impressive track record of success in some of the most high-profile cases across the pharmaceutical, medical device, automotive and financial sectors has earned him a reputation as a skilled and accomplished practitioner. Greg is known for his considered strategic litigation advice and his ability to align litigation strategy with clients’ commercial objectives. He is a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel and also has a master’s degree in biochemistry.
and medical device, pharmaceutical and regulatory matters throughout Australia and internationally. In her rapidly growing practice at Clayton Utz, Alex advises clients across the automotive, health, consumer goods and financial services industries. Clients benefit from her ability to manage disputes in a manner that enhances global defence strategies, drives efficiencies and allows clients to focus on their core business priorities. Alex is a member of the Defense Research Institute (DRI) and International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC).
Caitlin Sheehy is a special counsel in the Clayton Utz product liability team and an experienced commercial litigator who acts in complex product liability litigation, including class actions. She has represented
Australian and overseas pharmaceutical and medical device clients both in contentious and advisory matters, including in relation to regulatory issues, advertising and labelling requirements, and product safety and recall issues.
10 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
Clayton Utz Level 15 1 Bligh Street Sydney New South Wales 2000 Australia
Tel: +61 2 9353 4000 Fax: +61 2 8220 6700 Email: gwilliams@claytonutz.com Web: www.claytonutz.com
1. Product Safety 1.1 Product Safety Legal Framework Australian Consumer Law
• the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994 (Cth) and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Cth); • the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth); and • the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 (Cth). In each case, these regimes do not prevent the prod - ucts in question from being subject to the Australian Consumer Law, subject to certain limited carve-outs. In addition to these statutory obligations, product manufacturers and suppliers are subject to obliga - tions under common law. Specifically, persons who are injured by a product may have a right to sue the supplier of the product in negligence (as well as under statutory causes of action created by the Australian Consumer Law), and an analysis of a supplier’s duty to users of its product in negligence will often be impor - tant in assessing the appropriate response to a poten - tial product safety risk. 1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety Federal The principal Australian product safety regulator is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which is responsible for administering the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), includ - ing the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC has regulatory, investigatory and prosecutorial powers granted to it under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. In relation to product safety, those powers include the power to require the production of docu - ments or the provision of information, including the power to examine witnesses and to enter premises,
The principal law governing product safety in Australia is the Australian Consumer Law, which codifies a sin - gle set of consumer protection laws for the whole of Australia, including (but not limited to) laws relating to product safety and product liability. The Australian Consumer Law is Schedule 2 to the federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). However, its operation across Australia also depends on state and territory laws, which provide that it has effect as a law of each Australian state and territory. Other Laws In addition to the Australian Consumer Law, there are a number of specific types of products that have their own safety regimes. By way of example, gas and electrical safety continues to be regulated at a state and territory level, so that each Australian jurisdiction has its own gas and electrical safety legislation, which applies to gas and electrical appliances. Other areas – such as therapeutic goods (ie, medicines and medical devices), food, agricultural and veterinary products, genetically modified organisms, and industrial chemi - cals (including cosmetics) – have their own federal safety regimes, pursuant to: • the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth); • the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code;
11 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
conduct searches and seize consumer goods, equip - ment and documents. Typically, the powers of entry, search and seizure must be exercised pursuant to a warrant, unless there are circumstances that require their exercise without delay in order to protect life or public safety. The ACCC also has powers to take a range of actions to protect consumer safety, including commencing compulsory recall actions, issuing substantiation notices and product safety notices, and prohibiting the making of certain representations in relation to a consumer product. Finally, the ACCC can issue penal - ty notices for breach of the Australian Consumer Law or commence proceedings seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties. It may also refer certain breaches of the Australian Consumer Law to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of criminal prosecution, with associ - ated criminal penalties. State In addition to the federal regulator, each state and territory has a Department of Fair Trading or similar – although the role of these entities in relation to product safety diminished following the commencement of the Australian Consumer Law in 2011. Each state also has offices or regulators responsible for safety issues relating to gas, electricity and home building products. Product liability issues in these subject areas will often require engagement with both federal and state (or territory) authorities. Sector-Specific The other important sector-specific regulators are: • the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in respect of medicines, medical devices and a range of other therapeutic goods; • Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medi - cines Authority (APVMA) in respect of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; • the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) in respect of genetically modified organ - isms;
• the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) in respect of industrial chemicals; and • state and territory fair trading, electrical safety and home building regulators (as mentioned previ - ously). The TGA, the APVMA, the OGTR and the AICIS each operate registration or licensing regimes that require certain products to be assessed and registered before they may be supplied or used in Australia. These regu - lators also have various investigatory, regulatory and enforcement powers – the precise scope of which var - ies from regulator to regulator, but which are generally similar in scope to the ACCC’s powers in relation to consumer goods, tailored to the particular products in question. Subject to certain carve-outs, the regimes are not exclusive, so a product that falls, for example, within the TGA’s remit may also be – in some circum - stances – a consumer product that is regulated by the ACCC and subject to the Australian Consumer Law. 1.3 Obligations to Commence Corrective Action The powers of the ACCC and other Australian regula - tors, as summarised in 1.2 Regulatory Authorities for Product Safety , include powers to compel local spon - sors, suppliers and/or manufacturers to take certain actions in relation to goods. By way of example, the ACCC may require corrective action or information to be supplied regarding goods, order a compulsory recall (in rare circumstances), issue an interim or per - manent ban on the supply of specified products, or create an information or safety standard in relation to particular products. However, outside situations where the ACCC or the TGA has created a specific obligation in relation to particular goods, the institution of voluntary recall action is generally a matter for manufacturers or sup - pliers to determine for themselves. The concept of product recall is well recognised under Australian law as covering a range of corrective actions in relation to products in the marketplace. The analysis of whether a recall is necessary in respect of a particular product safety issue is typically conducted by reference to the standards established by the tort
12 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
Incident-Based There is a broad-ranging requirement to report inci - dents related to products to the ACCC. A supplier of consumer goods who becomes aware of the death or serious injury or illness of any person that was caused or may have been caused – or, in the opinion of any other person, was or may have been caused – by the use or foreseeable misuse of those consumer goods must notify the ACCC of that fact within two days of becoming aware of it (Section 131 of the Australian Consumer Law). The Australian Consumer Law defines “serious injury or illness” as meaning “an acute physical injury or ill - ness that requires medical or surgical treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner or a nurse (whether or not in a hospital, clinic or similar place), but does not include: • an ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development); or • the recurrence, or aggravation, of such an ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition”. There are certain limited exceptions to this obligation where: • it is clear that the death or serious injury or illness was not caused by the use or foreseeable misuse of the consumer goods; • it is very unlikely that the death or serious injury or illness was caused by the use or foreseeable misuse of the consumer goods; or • the goods in question are subject to one of a number of alternative incident-based notification regimes in accordance with an industry code of practice or Commonwealth, state or territory law that is specified in the regulations to the Competi - tion and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (these include notification regimes relating to therapeutic goods, agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and motor vehicles). Notification pursuant to Section 131 is also typical - ly undertaken using an online form available on the ACCC’s recalls website.
of negligence – that is, what are the reasonable steps required of the supplier as a result of a foreseeable risk of injury to users of the product? If a supplier initiates a recall action, there are no spe - cific legal requirements as to how such recalls must be conducted. However, the various regulators (in par - ticular, the ACCC, the TGA, FSANZ and the electri - cal safety regulators) publish guidelines in relation to the conduct of recalls. As a result of those guidelines, there are: • common notification requirements to regulators regarding recall actions; • commonly expected formats for recall notices; and • common ongoing reporting obligations regarding the progress of recalls. 1.4 Obligations to Notify Regulatory Authorities There are two notification obligations in relation to consumer goods in Australia: one risk-based and one incident-based. Risk-Based A supplier who voluntarily takes action to recall con - sumer goods because of a safety risk (including non- compliance with bans and certain safety standards) must, within two days of taking such action, give the relevant federal minister (which is, in effect, the ACCC) written notice that such action has been taken (Section 128 of the Australian Consumer Law). Such notice is typically given using the online form avail - able on the ACCC’s recalls website . The online form requires the provision of relatively detailed informa - tion about the nature of the product, the extent of its distribution in Australia, the reason for the recall, how the supplier intends to inform customers of a recall and what remedy the supplier will provide. Careful and detailed completion of the notification is recom - mended because provision of this information could otherwise be formally compelled by the ACCC. The ACCC continues to take an active and detailed interest in the initiation and continuing conduct of recall actions, so as to ensure that the best possible return rates are achieved and that continuing recall actions are taken by suppliers and manufacturers.
13 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
1.5 Penalties for Breach of Product Safety Obligations Pecuniary Penalties Under the Australian Consumer Law, the maximum pecuniary penalties that may be imposed for breach of product safety obligations generally are, in the case of a corporation: • a fine of up to AUD100 million; • if the court can determine the value of the benefit that the body corporate (and any body corpo - rate related to the body corporate) have obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attribut - able to the act or omission, a fine of three times the value of that benefit; or • if the court cannot determine the value of the ben - efit, a fine of 30% of the adjusted turnover of the corporation during the breach turnover period for the act or omission. The maximum penalty that may be imposed on an individual is a fine of AUD2.5 million. In either case, the above-mentioned pecuniary penal - ties can be sought in either a criminal prosecution or a civil penalty proceeding. The above-mentioned fines are the maximum fines payable in respect of breaches of substantive pro - visions of the Australian Consumer Law. There are some breaches that may attract lesser penalties – for example, penalties for breach of the recall notification obligations outlined under 1.4 Obligations to Notify Regulatory Authorities include (at present) AUD16,500 for a corporation and AUD3,300 for an individual, but can also include orders disqualifying individuals from managing corporations for a period (on application by the regulator). Civil penalties There are numerous examples of the ACCC seeking and obtaining civil penalties in respect of breaches of the Australian Consumer Law. By way of example, in relation to product safety, in December 2025, a national retailer of apparel was required to pay AUD14 million for non-compliance with the Consumer Goods (Products Containing But -
ton/Coin Batteries) Safety Standard and Consumer Goods (Products Containing Button/Coin Batteries) Information Standard. The following are recent examples of civil penalties being imposed in relation to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law that did not relate to product safety. • In March 2023, an Australian online bookseller was ordered to pay AUD6 million in respect of mislead - ing statements made on its website in relation to consumer guarantee rights. • In July 2023, a former Australian vocational train - ing college and its marketing arm were ordered to pay a record penalty of AUD438 million for act - ing unconscionably and misleading students into thinking vocational courses they were enrolling in were free. • In August 2023, an Australian technology company was ordered to pay AUD10 million in respect of false and misleading representations made on its website about discount prices for add-on com - puter monitors. • In December 2023, a US-based wearable technol - ogy company was ordered to pay AUD11 million after it admitted to making false, misleading or deceptive representations to 58 consumers about their consumer guarantee rights to a refund or a replacement after they claimed their device was faulty. • In December 2023, an Australian car company was ordered to pay AUD6 million in respect of false or misleading representations made to customers that certain dealerships had closed and would no longer service vehicles. • In February 2024, an Australian car company was ordered to pay AUD11.5 million in penalties for false or misleading representations it made to nine consumers about their consumer guarantee rights. • In March 2024, an Australian online floral company was ordered to pay AUD1 million after it admitted to making false and misleading representations on its website – namely, by publishing misleading star ratings for its products, advertising products at a discount when they had not generally sold products at the “strikethrough price”, and adding surcharges that were inadequately disclosed.
14 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
• In May 2024, Australia’s national carrier Qantas reached an agreement with the ACCC to pay an AUD100 million penalty (and, in addition, approxi - mately AUD20 million in compensation) for false and misleading conduct in selling tickets on flights that had in fact been cancelled. This agreed penal - ty was confirmed by the Federal Court of Australia in October 2024. • In July 2024, an Australian supplier of loungewear was ordered to pay AUD101,280 in penalties for allegedly failing to include high fire danger warning labels on six different styles of its loungewear, as required by the Consumer Goods (Children’s Night - wear and Limited Daywear and Paper Patterns for Children’s Nightwear) Safety Standard 2017; • In July 2024, an Australian online auction business was ordered to pay AUD10 million in penalties for making false or misleading representations in the descriptions of hundreds of cars listed for sale on its website between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2022. • In July 2024, an Australian course and mentoring programme provider was ordered to pay AUD5 million in pecuniary penalties for making false or misleading representations to consumers in the promotion and sale of two education programmes and to pay students who had enrolled in one of the programmes redress totalling AUD14.7 million. The company’s sole director was also ordered to pay AUD1 million in penalties, in addition to being disqualified from managing corporations for five years. • In August 2024, an Australian operator of car park facilities was ordered to pay AUD10.95 million in penalties for making false or misleading claims about its pre-book online parking services. • In September 2024, one of Australia’s largest energy retailers was ordered to pay AUD14 mil - lion in penalties for making false, misleading or deceptive statements to hundreds of thousands of consumers about electricity prices, as well as for failing to provide mandatory information required by the Electricity Retail Code. • In September 2024, the ACCC commenced proceedings against Australia’s largest supermar - kets for allegedly misleading consumers through discount pricing claims. • In September 2025, a telecommunications provider was ordered to pay AUD100 million in respect of
unconscionable conduct and misleading or decep - tive conduct in its dealing with more than 100 Indigenous consumers, consumers with mental disabilities and consumers suffering from financial hardship across Australia. • In September 2025, the ACCC initiated pro - ceedings against four suppliers and three senior executives for alleged price fixing when supplying produce to a supermarket. Criminal penalties Examples of criminal penalties and referral to the Com - monwealth Director of Public Prosecutions are much rarer and relate to breach of the cartel provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). By way of example, in 2017 Australia’s first criminal cartel case concluded with a fine of AUD25 million in a global vehicle shipping company cartel case. In 2022, the Federal Court of Australia sentenced four individuals to suspended prison terms in relation to price fixing of the Australian dollar/Vietnamese dong exchange rate and transaction fees charged to customers. This was the first time that individuals in Australia were sentenced for criminal cartel conduct. More recently, in 2024, the Federal Court of Australia convicted and sentenced two waste management companies (and the CEOs of the companies during the period of the offending) for criminal cartel offences relating to a price fixing arrangement for demolition waste services in Sydney. The companies were fined AUD30 million and AUD3.5 million respectively, while the directors each received terms of imprisonment to be served as intensive correction orders (including community service), monetary fines and bans from managing corporations for a period of five years each. Infringement Notices In addition to the above-mentioned criminal and civil penalty regimes, the ACCC also has the power – pur - suant to Section 134A of the Competition and Con - sumer Act 2010 (Cth) – to issue infringement notices in respect of certain breaches of the Australian Con - sumer Law. The ACCC may issue an infringement notice if it has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened one of the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law specified in Section 134A.
15 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
Negligence Under common law, a manufacturer or supplier of products also owes a duty of care to both the pur - chaser and the user to take reasonable steps to pro - tect them from any foreseeable injury when using a product as intended. The extent of the duty owed by a particular manufacturer or supplier will depend on the role they play in the supply chain and the steps that are reasonably and practicably available to them to address the risk. Since the early 2000s, common law negligence in Australia has been substantially impacted by statu - tory reforms designed to create a uniform national approach and curtail excessive negligence claims. These led to the introduction of various civil liability regimes, which are in place in Australian states and territories. False, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct The Australian Consumer Law prohibits persons from engaging in false, misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. It does not matter whether the person intended to mislead. Breach of this prohibi - tion gives rise to a right to sue for loss or damage (although not for personal injury) in respect of losses suffered as a result of that conduct. This prohibition is relied on in all manner of claims, including product liability claims for economic loss. By way of example, if goods are represented – expressly or impliedly – to have certain qualities that they do not have, a purchaser or end user of the product may sue for damages on the basis that the representations are misleading. Statutory Guarantees Part 3-2 Division 1 of the Australian Consumer Law provides that a supplier of goods to a consumer sup - plies those goods subject to a number of statutory guarantees. These guarantees cannot be limited or excluded by contract. They require that the goods: • correspond with their description; • are of acceptable quality; • are fit for any disclosed purpose; • conform to any sample provided or demonstration model in quality, state or condition; and
An infringement notice issued pursuant to Section 134A will specify a pecuniary penalty that must be paid for the purported breach of the Australian Con - sumer Law. The maximum penalties that may be imposed by an infringement notice vary according to the particular provision said to have been breached. Payment of an infringement notice precludes any fur - ther penalty (civil or criminal) being sought from that person in respect of the breach. The use of infringement notices is quite common and almost exclusively related to breaches of Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (which prohibits false or misleading representations about goods or services). The ACCC publishes a register of such notices, which identifies the person or company that is the subject of the notice and the provisions of the Australian Con - sumer Law (or other applicable industry standard) that have been breached. However, the register does not disclose the particular products or conduct to which the notice relates. 2. Product Liability 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law Liability for a faulty or defective product that causes injury, loss or damage may be brought on a number of grounds. The causes of action most commonly pleaded are the common law tort of negligence or a breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The Aus - tralian Consumer Law creates a number of bases for liability, including: • engaging in false, misleading or deceptive conduct (although these claims may not be relied on in per - sonal injury cases); • breach by a supplier of consumer goods of statu - tory guarantees – eg, guarantees of acceptable quality; • derivative liability for manufacturers in respect of goods that breach the statutory guarantee of acceptable quality; and • the manufacture of goods with a safety defect.
16 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
• comply with any express warranties given in rela - tion to them. Remedies for breach of the above-mentioned con - sumer guarantees are provided in Part 5-4 of the Australian Consumer Law. For actions against sup - pliers, consumers have a number of remedies avail - able, including in some cases the right to return the goods and demand a refund, as well as the right to recover any reasonably foreseeable losses suffered by reason of the failure of the goods to comply with the guarantee. Part 5-4 also provides an extended right to sue the manufacturer of goods for damages if they breach guarantees of acceptable quality, in terms of supply of goods by description, as to repairs and spare parts Part 3-5 of the Australian Consumer Law imposes lia - bility on manufacturers of goods with safety defects. It is closely modelled on the European Product Liability Directive. Goods have a safety defect if their safety is “not such as persons generally are entitled to expect”. Rele - vant surrounding circumstances must be taken into account in making this safety inquiry. If such goods cause personal injury or damage to land, buildings or fixtures, persons who suffer loss as a result of such injury or damage may sue the manufacturer for dam - ages. Expanded Concepts of Consumer and Manufacturer Under the Australian Consumer Law There are specific definitions of “consumer” and “con - sumer goods” as well as “manufacturer” in the Aus - tralian Consumer Law. “Consumer goods” or “goods acquired as a consum - er” are goods that: • cost AUD100,000 or less, are a vehicle or trailer acquired for use principally in the transport of goods on public roads, or are otherwise goods that are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; or express warranties. Strict Liability Regime
• were not acquired for the purposes of using them up or transforming them, in trade or commerce, in the course of a process of production or manu - facture or repair or treatment of other goods or fixtures on land; and • were not acquired: (a) (for goods other than gift cards) for the pur - pose of resupply; or (b) (for gift cards) for the purpose of re‑supply in trade or commerce. The term “manufacturer” has a deeming function, and it means not only the actual manufacturer of goods (ie, a person who grows, extracts, produces, processes or assembles goods), but also: • a person who causes or permits their name (or a name by which the person carries on business or a brand or mark of the person) to be applied to the goods; • a person who causes or permits themselves to be held out as the manufacturer of the goods; and • a person who imports the goods into Australia (if the actual manufacturer of the goods does not have a place of business in Australia). Contract Another cause of action for a person who has been injured or who has suffered loss or damage is under the law of contract. However, the number of these claims has diminished owing to the growth of statu - tory remedies and remedies available under the tort of negligence. 2.2 Standing to Bring Product Liability Claims Under the Australian regime, the original purchaser is not the only person who may make a claim for injuries caused by a product. Apart from the remedies avail - able for breach of consumer guarantees, which may only be sought by the consumer who received the goods from the supplier, the other causes of action outlined in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law may be relied upon by any person who suffers loss and damage that is compensable under the relevant cause of action.
17 CHAMBERS.COM
AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Greg Williams, Alexandra Rose and Caitlin Sheehy, Clayton Utz
2.3 Time Limits for Product Liability Claims The limitation period for bringing a product liability claim depends on a number of factors, including the cause of action, the type of claim (eg, in relation to an alleged safety defect), whether the claim is brought under common law or statute, the relevant Australian jurisdiction, and the date of the alleged act or omis - sion. However, in relation to claims for personal injury, the applicable limitation period for an action to be com - menced is: • in most jurisdictions, either within three years of the date the cause of action is discoverable by the plaintiff (the date of discoverability) or 12 years from the date of the act or omission alleged to have caused the death or injury (the long-stop period); or • three years from the date the cause of action accrued. There may also be a mechanism for an extension to be granted by the courts in relation to the applicable limi - tation period for personal injury claims. In determining whether to grant an extension, a court is generally required to consider a number of factors, including having regard to the justice of the case. Again, in most jurisdictions an extension of up to three years can be granted. There are also circumstances in which limita - tion periods are suspended, such as: • where a claimant is suffering from a legal incapac - ity (eg, the claimant is a minor or suffers from a mental or physical disability); or • when a class action is commenced – in which case, the limitation period will not begin to run again until a group member opts out or the pro - ceedings are determined. The limitation period for claims that do not relate to personal injury is, in most cases, six years from when the cause of action accrued. 2.4 Jurisdictional Requirements for Product Liability Claims Australia has both a federal court system and a hier - archy of courts in each of the states and territories.
The High Court of Australia deals with constitutional disputes and appeals (with leave) from either the full federal court or a state or territory court of appeal. Both federal and state courts may exercise jurisdiction in respect of the causes of action under the Austral - ian Consumer Law outlined in 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law . In so far as a claim relates to defendants and conduct within Aus - tralia, proceedings may be commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction, regardless of where the conduct occurred. However, there is cross-vesting legislation that provides that the proceedings may be moved from one jurisdiction to another if they are in The Australian Consumer Law has long-arm jurisdic - tion and also regulates the conduct of foreign corpo - rations that are “carrying on business” in Australia. In order for an Australian court to validly exercise juris - diction over a foreign corporation, that corporation must be validly served with initiating process. Some courts require leave to be obtained to serve overseas corporations, and for the court to be satisfied that the claim has a sufficient nexus to Australia to justify it being brought in Australia. In other courts, there is no requirement to seek leave to serve an overseas cor - poration when certain claims (such as those under the Australian Consumer Law) are being made. The court rules in each jurisdiction set out a list of circumstances in which service outside Australia may be permitted. One such circumstance is that the claim is seeking recovery of damage suffered wholly or partly in Aus - tralia; this is often sufficient in product liability claims to justify service on a foreign defendant. an inappropriate forum. Foreign Corporations Australia is party to the Hague Convention on the Ser - vice Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters 1965, so – if authorised – service may be effected through Hague Convention means on other treaty parties. 2.5 Pre-Action Procedures and Requirements for Product Liability Claims Under Federal Legislation There are mandatory steps that must be taken at a federal level and in some states and territories in Aus - tralia before formal proceedings can be commenced
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook