Assistive Technology Liability Claims in Europe

1. Meaning of Assistive Technology Liability Claims

Assistive Technology Liability Claims arise where a product, software system, device, service, algorithm, or digital technology designed to assist a person with a disability or functional limitation causes injury, discrimination, privacy violations, economic loss, denial of access, or other legally recognised harm.

Assistive technologies can include:

powered wheelchairs;

prosthetic limbs;

hearing aids;

cochlear implants;

communication devices;

screen readers;

speech-generating devices;

eye-tracking systems;

mobility and navigation systems;

smart-home accessibility systems;

wearable medical devices;

AI-assisted communication tools;

accessible software;

automated captioning;

voice-control systems;

assistive robotics;

disability-related educational technologies.

The central legal question is:

Who should bear responsibility when assistive technology fails to provide the required assistance or causes legally recognised harm?

Potentially responsible actors include the manufacturer, software developer, healthcare provider, supplier, distributor, employer, educational institution, public authority, service provider, or technology operator, depending on the circumstances.

2. No Single European Assistive-Technology Liability Law

There is no single EU cause of action called an “assistive technology liability claim.”

Claims may instead arise under several overlapping legal regimes:

product liability;

medical-device regulation;

negligence/professional liability;

contract law;

consumer law;

disability discrimination law;

accessibility law;

GDPR/data protection;

employment law;

education law;

public-authority liability;

fundamental rights;

digital-services regulation;

cybersecurity obligations.

National law remains particularly important for determining:

negligence;

causation;

damages;

limitation periods;

contractual liability;

professional duties.

3. Examples of Assistive Technology Liability

A claim might arise where:

Example 1 — Powered wheelchair

A software defect causes a wheelchair to accelerate unexpectedly and injure its user.

Potential claims:

product liability;

negligence;

defective software;

inadequate warnings;

medical-device regulatory breach.

Example 2 — Hearing device

A defective hearing device causes serious hearing damage.

Potential claims:

defective product;

medical negligence;

failure to warn;

manufacturing defect.

Example 3 — AI communication system

An AI communication device repeatedly misinterprets a disabled person's commands and prevents access to essential services.

Potential claims could involve:

contract;

accessibility;

discrimination;

negligence;

consumer law.

Example 4 — Workplace assistive software

An employer's accessibility software incorrectly categorises a disabled worker and causes adverse employment decisions.

Potential claims could involve:

disability discrimination;

employment law;

data protection;

employer negligence.

4. European Legal Framework

A. EU Product Liability Law

The EU product-liability framework is particularly important where assistive technology is a defective product.

Historically, the principal instrument was:

Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products.

EU product-liability law has subsequently been modernised to address the realities of:

software;

digital technologies;

connected products;

updates;

cybersecurity;

AI-enabled products.

This development is highly significant for assistive technologies because modern assistive products are often hardware + software + connectivity + data + AI rather than simple physical objects.

5. Medical Device Regulation

Many assistive technologies may qualify as medical devices or related products.

The principal EU framework is:

Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices (MDR).

Depending on classification and intended use, obligations can concern:

safety;

performance;

clinical evaluation;

risk management;

post-market surveillance;

vigilance;

instructions;

warnings;

corrective measures.

A defective medical assistive device may therefore generate both regulatory and civil liability issues.

6. European Accessibility Law

Accessibility has become increasingly important.

The European Accessibility Act establishes accessibility requirements for certain products and services.

Depending on the product/service and applicable provisions, accessibility requirements can concern:

computers;

operating systems;

electronic communications;

banking services;

e-commerce;

electronic books;

transport-related services;

consumer-facing digital interfaces.

Assistive technology therefore cannot always be analysed simply as a physical product-safety issue.

A system may be physically safe but still legally problematic if it unreasonably prevents a disabled person from accessing a protected service.

7. Disability Discrimination

European equality law is also important.

The Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC protects against disability discrimination in employment.

The concept of reasonable accommodation is particularly relevant.

An employer may have obligations to adapt:

software;

equipment;

workplace technology;

communication systems;

working arrangements.

Failure to provide appropriate accommodation may potentially result in liability even where the assistive technology itself is not defective.

8. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is highly relevant to European disability-accessibility law.

Important principles include:

accessibility;

equality;

reasonable accommodation;

independent living;

participation;

access to information;

mobility;

education;

employment.

The CRPD reinforces a shift away from treating disability solely as an individual medical problem and toward examining barriers created by technology and institutions.

9. GDPR and Assistive Technology

Assistive technologies can process highly sensitive data.

Examples include:

health information;

biometric data;

voice recordings;

movement data;

disability information;

location;

behavioural data;

communication content.

The GDPR may therefore become relevant, especially Articles:

5;

6;

9;

12–15;

22;

25;

32;

35;

A device can therefore be simultaneously:

a product + medical device + data-processing system + accessibility tool.

10. Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Technology

AI increasingly powers:

speech recognition;

predictive text;

image description;

navigation;

prosthetic control;

hearing enhancement;

automated captioning;

communication aids;

rehabilitation systems.

AI creates additional risks:

hallucinations;

inaccurate interpretation;

bias;

discriminatory outputs;

unreliable classification;

cybersecurity failures;

unpredictable behaviour.

The EU AI regulatory framework can therefore become relevant where an assistive technology incorporates an AI system falling within its scope.

11. Elements of an Assistive Technology Liability Claim

A typical civil claim may require establishing:

1. Product or technology

What system or device was involved?

2. Duty

Who owed the relevant legal duty?

3. Defect or breach

Was the technology:

defective;

inadequately designed;

inadequately tested;

unsafe;

inaccessible;

discriminatory;

insufficiently maintained?

4. Causation

Did the defect or breach cause the harm?

5. Damage

What legally recognised harm occurred?

6. Defences

Were there:

misuse;

modification;

contributory negligence;

unforeseeable use;

third-party interference?

12. Product Defect

An assistive technology may be defective because of:

Design defect

The product was unsafe by design.

Manufacturing defect

The individual product departed from the intended design.

Software defect

The programming or algorithm caused unsafe behaviour.

Information defect

The manufacturer failed to provide appropriate:

instructions;

warnings;

contraindications;

safety information.

Cybersecurity defect

The technology was inadequately protected against reasonably foreseeable attacks.

13. Product Safety and the Reasonable User

The assessment of defect generally involves the level of safety a person is entitled to expect, considering:

intended use;

reasonably foreseeable use;

instructions;

warnings;

product presentation;

time of circulation;

technical knowledge;

foreseeable risks.

For assistive technology, the user's disability and foreseeable manner of use can be highly relevant.

A product designed for disabled users cannot necessarily assume that users will interact with it in the same way as an ordinary consumer.

14. Medical Assistive Devices

Medical assistive devices raise additional issues.

Examples include:

prostheses;

mobility aids;

implantable devices;

hearing devices;

rehabilitation equipment.

Potential defendants may include:

manufacturer;

importer;

distributor;

healthcare institution;

clinician;

maintenance provider.

The claimant may need expert evidence concerning:

clinical standards;

device safety;

design;

maintenance;

expected performance;

causation.

15. Case Law — Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH and Others

Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, CJEU, 5 March 2015

Facts and principle

The CJEU considered defective medical devices and the EU product-liability framework.

The Court recognised that a product may be considered defective where there is a potentially heightened risk of damage associated with products of the same series or production group.

Importance for assistive technology

This is one of the most important European authorities for assistive-device liability.

A manufacturer cannot necessarily wait until every individual device fails before safety concerns become legally relevant.

Relevance

Particularly important for:

prosthetic devices;

implantable assistive devices;

medical electronics;

connected medical technology.

Classification

Directly relevant product-liability authority.

16. Case Law — Sanofi Pasteur

Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC v M

Case C-621/15, CJEU, 21 June 2017

Principle

The CJEU examined causation and evidential issues under EU product-liability law.

The case is particularly important where scientific evidence cannot establish causation through an absolute level of certainty.

Assistive technology relevance

Assistive-device claims can present difficult causal questions:

Did the device cause the injury, or did the user's underlying medical condition cause it?

The case illustrates the importance of evidential reasoning in product-liability claims.

Classification

Direct product-liability authority; analogically relevant to assistive technology.

17. Case Law — HK Danmark

HK Danmark v Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab and Others

Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11, CJEU, 11 April 2013

Principle

The CJEU considered disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Directive and the meaning of disability in the employment context.

The Court connected disability discrimination with the barriers that can restrict participation in professional life.

Assistive-technology relevance

Technology can constitute part of the employer's reasonable-accommodation obligations.

Examples include:

accessible software;

adapted equipment;

communication technology;

workplace interfaces.

Classification

Directly relevant disability-law authority.

18. Case Law — Z. v A Government Department

Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School

Case C-363/12, CJEU, 18 March 2014

Principle

The CJEU examined the scope of EU disability-equality law.

The judgment clarified limits of the concept of disability discrimination under the Employment Equality Directive.

Relevance

It demonstrates that not every disadvantage associated with a health condition automatically creates a disability-discrimination claim.

For assistive technology, the claimant must establish that the circumstances fall within the applicable equality framework.

Classification

Direct disability-law authority; indirect relevance to assistive technology.

19. Case Law — Glor v Switzerland

Glor v Switzerland

Application No. 13444/04, ECtHR, 30 April 2009

Principle

The ECtHR considered disability discrimination in the context of military-service obligations and the relationship between disability and equal treatment.

The Court recognised the importance of examining disability-related distinctions under Article 14 ECHR together with another Convention right.

Assistive-technology relevance

The case supports the broader European principle that disability-related differences may require careful justification and proportionality.

Classification

Analogical ECtHR disability-discrimination authority.

20. Case Law — Çam v Turkey

Çam v Turkey

Application No. 51500/08, ECtHR, 23 February 2016

Principle

The ECtHR addressed disability discrimination in access to education.

The Court emphasised that reasonable accommodation can be an important component of non-discrimination.

Assistive-technology relevance

Educational accessibility increasingly depends upon:

screen readers;

communication technology;

accessible examinations;

adaptive learning systems.

Failure to accommodate technological accessibility can therefore raise discrimination issues.

Classification

Highly relevant analogical authority.

21. Case Law — Enver Şahin v Turkey

Enver Şahin v Turkey

Application No. 23065/12, ECtHR, 30 January 2018

Principle

The ECtHR examined accessibility for a person with a physical disability and considered the State's obligations concerning reasonable accommodation.

Relevance to assistive technology

Accessibility is not simply about whether a technology exists.

The question may be whether the overall environment allows the disabled person to exercise the relevant right effectively.

Assistive technology can therefore be part of a reasonable-accommodation solution.

Classification

Highly relevant analogical authority.

22. Case Law — V.C. v Slovakia

V.C. v Slovakia

Application No. 18968/07, ECtHR, 8 November 2011

Principle

The ECtHR examined medical intervention, consent and personal autonomy.

Assistive-technology relevance

Medical assistive technology can profoundly affect:

bodily integrity;

autonomy;

informed consent;

dignity.

The case reinforces the importance of informed and voluntary participation in medical interventions.

Classification

Analogical medical-autonomy authority.

23. Case Law — S. and Marper v United Kingdom

S. and Marper v United Kingdom

Applications Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECtHR Grand Chamber, 4 December 2008

Principle

The ECtHR examined retention of biometric information under Article 8.

Assistive-technology relevance

Modern assistive systems may process:

fingerprints;

facial data;

voice patterns;

gait information;

health data.

The case demonstrates that technological processing of highly personal information requires appropriate privacy safeguards.

Classification

Analogical privacy authority.

24. Case Law — Glukhin v Russia

Glukhin v Russia

Application No. 11519/20, ECtHR, 4 July 2023

Principle

The ECtHR examined facial-recognition technology and its implications for privacy and freedom of expression.

Assistive-technology relevance

AI-enabled assistive devices may use biometric recognition to:

identify people;

interpret facial movements;

operate communication systems;

navigate environments.

The judgment reinforces the principle that biometric technology must comply with fundamental-rights requirements.

Classification

Highly relevant analogical technology/privacy authority.

25. Case-Law Summary Table

26. Disability Discrimination and Assistive Technology

An assistive-technology claim may involve discrimination in two different ways.

Direct discrimination

Example:

A service provider refuses to allow a disabled customer to use an assistive communication device.

Indirect discrimination

Example:

A service is technically available to everyone but requires an interface that disabled users cannot reasonably operate.

The second situation can be more difficult because the provider may argue that the requirement is neutral.

27. Reasonable Accommodation

Reasonable accommodation is particularly important in employment and education.

Possible accommodations include:

screen-reading software;

voice recognition;

modified keyboards;

alternative communication devices;

accessible interfaces;

captioning;

ergonomic equipment;

adapted workplace controls;

accessible examination technology.

The legal question is not necessarily:

“Did the institution provide the preferred technology?”

It may instead be:

“Did the institution take appropriate and reasonable steps to remove the relevant barrier?”

28. Failure to Provide Assistive Technology

Liability may arise where an institution:

knows of the disability;

knows the technological barrier;

has a legal duty to accommodate;

has a reasonable accommodation available;

unjustifiably refuses or fails to provide it.

This can arise in:

employment;

education;

public services;

healthcare;

transport;

digital services.

29. Defective Assistive Technology Versus Lack of Technology

These are different legal claims.

Defective technology

The technology exists but is unsafe or fails to perform adequately.

Accessibility failure

The technology or service is not reasonably accessible.

Accommodation failure

The institution fails to provide an appropriate adjustment.

Discrimination

The technology or its use produces unlawful unequal treatment.

One factual situation can potentially produce several claims.

30. Causation

Causation is often difficult.

Suppose a prosthetic device malfunctions and the user falls.

The claimant may need to establish:

Device defect → malfunction → fall → injury.

But there may be competing causes:

underlying medical condition;

improper maintenance;

user modification;

environmental conditions;

third-party interference.

Expert evidence can therefore be crucial.

31. Foreseeable Misuse

Assistive technology must often be assessed in light of reasonably foreseeable use.

For example, a manufacturer may need to anticipate that:

a wheelchair user will operate the device outdoors;

a communication aid will be used continuously;

a hearing device will be exposed to normal environmental conditions;

a prosthetic device will be subjected to ordinary physical stresses.

A manufacturer cannot necessarily define “proper use” so narrowly that ordinary foreseeable use becomes “misuse.”

32. Software Updates

Modern assistive technology may require continuing updates.

Potential liability can arise from:

defective updates;

failure to provide necessary security patches;

updates that remove accessibility functionality;

incompatibility with assistive software;

unannounced changes;

degraded performance.

This is particularly important because the product may change after the initial sale.

33. Cybersecurity Liability

Connected assistive devices can be attacked.

Examples include:

hacked smart wheelchairs;

compromised medical devices;

unauthorised access to communication systems;

theft of health data;

manipulation of prosthetic controls.

Possible legal regimes include:

product liability;

GDPR;

cybersecurity regulation;

negligence;

contract.

Cybersecurity can therefore become part of product safety.

34. Data Protection Claims

Assistive technologies frequently process special-category personal data.

For example:

Smart prosthesis → movement data → health profile

or

Speech-generating device → voice data → communication records

Potential violations can concern:

unlawful processing;

inadequate security;

excessive data collection;

unauthorised sharing;

inadequate transparency;

unlawful profiling;

excessive retention.

The user may potentially seek:

cessation of unlawful processing;

restriction;

deletion where appropriate;

access;

correction;

compensation.

35. AI Assistive Technology

AI-assisted technologies create additional questions.

Suppose an AI-powered communication device systematically misinterprets the speech patterns of a person with a disability.

Possible issues include:

Accuracy

Does the system work reliably for the intended user population?

Bias

Was the training data sufficiently representative?

Accessibility

Was the system designed for different disability profiles?

Safety

Could incorrect interpretation cause physical harm?

Transparency

Can the user understand significant limitations?

Human oversight

Can a human intervene when the system fails?

36. Manufacturer Liability

Potential manufacturer liability can arise from:

design defects;

manufacturing defects;

software defects;

inadequate instructions;

inadequate warnings;

failure to monitor post-market safety;

cybersecurity vulnerabilities;

failure to issue safety corrections.

The manufacturer is not automatically liable for every failure.

The claimant generally needs to establish the elements required under the applicable product-liability law.

37. Healthcare Provider Liability

A healthcare provider may be liable independently of the manufacturer.

For example:

Safe device + negligent prescription/configuration/installation → injury

Potential issues include:

wrong device selection;

inadequate fitting;

failure to monitor;

failure to train;

failure to respond to warning signs.

Thus:

Product defect and professional negligence are separate possible sources of liability.

38. Employer Liability

Where assistive technology is used at work, employers may face claims concerning:

failure to provide reasonable accommodation;

unsafe technology;

discriminatory decisions;

workplace injury;

unlawful monitoring;

failure to consult the employee.

The employer cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by purchasing technology from a third party.

39. Educational Institution Liability

Schools and universities may face claims where assistive technology is required for equal educational participation.

Examples include:

inaccessible examination software;

failure to permit screen readers;

incompatible learning platforms;

inaccessible online teaching;

defective disability-assessment systems.

Possible legal bases include:

equality law;

disability accommodation;

education law;

contract;

administrative law;

fundamental rights.

40. Public Authority Liability

Public bodies increasingly use technology in:

welfare;

healthcare;

transport;

social services;

education;

employment support.

A public authority may face liability where technological barriers prevent disabled persons from accessing public services.

Fundamental-rights principles concerning:

dignity;

equality;

private life;

effective participation;

may reinforce statutory rights.

41. Defences

Potential defences include:

1. No defect

The product met the applicable safety requirements.

2. No causation

The technology did not cause the injury.

3. Misuse

The device was used in a manner outside reasonably foreseeable use.

4. Modification

The user or third party altered the technology.

5. Maintenance failure

The harm resulted from improper maintenance.

6. Contributory negligence

The claimant contributed to the harm.

7. State-of-the-art arguments

Depending on the applicable product-liability regime.

8. Proportionality

Particularly in accessibility/discrimination cases involving competing legitimate interests.

42. Remedies

Depending on the claim, remedies may include:

Compensation

For:

physical injury;

medical expenses;

rehabilitation;

lost earnings;

future care;

pain and suffering;

psychological harm;

property damage.

Injunction

Preventing continued use of unsafe technology.

Replacement

Providing safe equipment.

Repair

Correcting defective technology.

Accessibility accommodation

Requiring an institution to provide a reasonable adjustment.

Data remedies

access;

correction;

deletion where applicable;

restriction;

cessation of unlawful processing.

Regulatory remedies

product recall;

corrective measures;

administrative sanctions.

43. Special Importance of Vulnerability

Assistive-technology users may be particularly vulnerable because the technology can be essential to:

mobility;

communication;

independence;

employment;

education;

healthcare;

social participation.

Therefore, a technology failure may have consequences much more serious than an ordinary consumer-product failure.

For example:

A defective entertainment device may cause inconvenience; a defective mobility device may eliminate a person's ability to leave home.

This context can be important when assessing foreseeability, proportionality, reasonable accommodation and damages.

44. Practical Legal Test

A European assistive-technology claim can be analysed through the following sequence:

Step 1 — Identify the technology

What exactly failed?

Step 2 — Identify its intended function

Was it designed to:

assist mobility?

communicate?

hear?

see?

work?

study?

access public services?

Step 3 — Identify the responsible actors

manufacturer;

developer;

healthcare provider;

employer;

school;

public authority;

service provider.

Step 4 — Identify the legal framework

Potentially:

product liability;

MDR;

GDPR;

disability discrimination;

reasonable accommodation;

consumer law;

contract;

negligence;

fundamental rights.

Step 5 — Identify the breach

Was there:

defect;

unsafe design;

inadequate warning;

discrimination;

inaccessible interface;

failure to accommodate;

inadequate security?

Step 6 — Establish causation

Did the technology or institutional failure cause the harm?

Step 7 — Establish damage

What legally recognised loss resulted?

Step 8 — Consider defences

Was there:

misuse;

modification;

maintenance failure;

third-party interference;

contributory negligence?

Step 9 — Select remedy

compensation;

repair;

replacement;

injunction;

accommodation;

data protection remedy;

regulatory action.

45. Important Legal Distinction

The following four categories should not be confused:

One incident may involve all four.

46. Overall Case-Law Principles

The case law establishes several important propositions.

First

Boston Scientific demonstrates the importance of product safety in medical-device liability.

Second

Sanofi Pasteur illustrates the importance of causation and evidence in product-liability claims.

Third

HK Danmark establishes the central role of disability equality and reasonable accommodation in employment.

Fourth

Çam and Enver Şahin demonstrate that accessibility can form part of meaningful equality and participation.

Fifth

Glor demonstrates the significance of disability discrimination under the Convention.

Sixth

S. and Marper shows that technologically processed personal/biometric data remains protected by privacy rights.

Seventh

Glukhin illustrates the human-rights implications of sophisticated biometric technology.

47. Final Conclusion

Assistive Technology Liability Claims in Europe sit at the intersection of product liability, disability discrimination, accessibility, medical-device regulation, data protection, negligence, contract and fundamental rights.

The strongest cases will usually identify exactly what failed:

unsafe technology + defective design/software + inadequate warning + discriminatory deployment + inaccessible service + failure of reasonable accommodation + unlawful data processing

and then identify the actor legally responsible for that failure.

The most important authorities include Boston Scientific, Sanofi Pasteur, HK Danmark, Z, Glor, Çam, Enver Şahin, S. and Marper, and Glukhin. The CJEU cases provide particularly strong guidance on product safety, causation and disability discrimination, while the ECtHR cases provide important principles concerning accessibility, equality, privacy, dignity and technological interference with fundamental rights.

The central European legal principle can be summarised as:

Assistive technology is not merely a consumer product: when it is essential to mobility, communication, education, employment, healthcare or independent living, its failure or discriminatory deployment can engage multiple layers of European legal protection.

At the same time, not every technological malfunction creates liability. A claimant must still establish the applicable duty or statutory protection, defect or unlawful conduct, causation, legally recognised harm, and the appropriate remedy under the relevant national and European framework.