EU lawmakers are expected to let the Commission pull the plug on the AI Liability Directive without contesting it, despite some internal grumbling.

The European Parliament will probably discontinue to work on the AI Liability Directive, a proposal originally introduced in order to harmonize administrative aspects of AI-related damage claim proceedings. The leadership of the legislative body’s strongest faction, the centre-right European People’s Party, has decided that the directive is not worth salvaging after the Commission included it on the list of proposals to be withdrawn.

The European Commission put the inititative on the chopping block in mid-February, citing lack of agreement among the three EU bodies involved in the adoption of the bloc’s legislation. Apart from the Commission itself, these include the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

With the term ‘lack of agreement’, the Commission usually refers to those proposals which were withdrawn because of lack of agreement over several years, either in Council or in Parliament. “No foreseeable agreement – the commission will assess whether another proposal should be tabled or another type of approach should be chosen,” read the ofiicial reasons for withdrawal in the annex to the commission’s 2025 work programme. Lack of agreement has been the second most frequent reason to drop proposed EU legislation, after obsolescence.

You might be interested

The EU AI Liability Directive was first conceived in 2022, two years before the bloc’s landmark AI Act was finalized. Back then, the Commission characterized the proposal as aiming to “improve the functioning of the internal market by laying down uniform rules for certain aspects of non-contractual civil liability for damage caused with the involvement of AI systems.” The decision to abandon the proposal was adopted 11 February and presented to the European Parliament a day later.

Internal opposition

The move by the EU executive arm to kill the measure was not entirely unexpected. The proposed directive faced strong opposition from within the Commission itself, EU Vice-President Henna Virkkunen being the main opponent. “I want Europe to be an AI continent,” Virkkunen told MEPs as early as in November as Vice-President designate, indicating that cutting red tape would be a priority during her time in office. In February, she told the Financial Times the Union wanted to “help and support companies when applying AI rules”.

The Council of the EU, arguably the most potent branch of Brussels power, has always been skeptical to the proposed directive. France’s Permanent Representation, for one, stated bluntly that it saw no reason to impose additional liability requirements on AI providers.

Simplification and competitiveness have become the latest Brussels buzzwords as the changed geopolitical climate is forcing new European Commission’s hand in numerous areas. This may have played a role in the Commission’s decision to bury the directive.

However, the newly discovered pro-business enthusiasm is yet to rub off on some parliamentarians. The lawmaker responsible for the AI Liability Directive, Axel Voss, belongs to the EPP – just as Ms Virkkunen, along with EC President Ursula von der Leyen and most commissioners – but he is far from happy about the new course.

Invitation to MEPs

“By scrapping the AI Liability Directive, the Commission is actively choosing legal uncertainty, corporate power imbalances, and a Wild West approach to AI liability that benefits only Big Tech,” Mr Voss wrote on LinkedIn after the withdrawal was announced.

The German MEP’s assessment of the situation may or may not be correct. But he was quick to delete the post, allegedly under pressure from party elders, as per the portal MLex.com. It was not in the interest of the strongest parliamentary faction to criticize an executive recruited mostly from its own ranks, the portal claims.

The Commission, however, has indicated a degree of flexibility on the issue. If EU legislators don’t want the AILD proposal withdrawn, they just have to make clear to the European Commission that they still want to work on it, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said at a media conference on 12 February. “We decided to put it on the withdrawal list so co-legislators have the chance to tell us: ‘No, we insist that this should be kept, we are ready to work on it, we will deliver on time’,” Mr Šefčovič said. “So this is our invitation to the co-legislators, tell us: Do you want to work on this AI liability proposal or not?”

The rules of EU lawmaking stipulate that the Commission inform the Parliament and the Council of the EU officially about its intention to scrap any pending piece of legislation. Both bodies could contest the decision, but the Council is unlikely to do so. The Parliament could seek judicial review but given the apparent shift of political priorities, it will be no surprise if it does not.

Ms Virkkunen has been invited to justify the withdrawal to MEPs. She is scheduled to do so before the JURI committee on 18 March.