Civil Law and UAE: Product Liability and the Expansion of Strict Liability

1. Introduction

Product liability concerns the legal responsibility of a manufacturer, importer, supplier, distributor, seller or other responsible party when a product is defective, unsafe, incorrectly described, or causes injury or property damage.

In the UAE, product liability is not based on one single statutory doctrine. It is built from several overlapping layers:

the general civil-liability rules;

the Civil Transactions Law;

the Federal Consumer Protection Law No. 15 of 2020;

the Federal Product Safety Law No. 10 of 2018;

its implementing regulations;

contractual warranty and sale-of-goods rules;

special legislation governing particular products.

The current Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, came into force on 1 June 2026. It modernises the UAE's rules on sale and latent defects, including extending the limitation period for latent-defect claims from six months to one year from delivery, unless a longer guarantee has been agreed. (UAE Legislation)

The important development is that UAE product liability is moving toward a stronger consumer-safety and risk-allocation model, although it would be inaccurate to say that UAE law has adopted an unrestricted American-style strict products-liability doctrine.

2. Meaning of Strict Product Liability

Under a traditional fault-based system, the claimant normally has to establish:

Fault + Damage + Causation = Liability

Under strict liability, the claimant may not need to prove the defendant's negligence in the ordinary sense.

The focus shifts toward:

Defective/unsafe product + legally relevant damage + causal connection = Liability

This does not mean that every injury caused by a product automatically makes the manufacturer liable.

The claimant may still need to establish:

existence of a defect or safety problem;

damage;

causation;

connection between the defendant and the product;

absence of an applicable defence;

legally recoverable loss.

This distinction is crucial in UAE law.

3. Is UAE Product Liability Strict Liability?

The short answer: Partly, but not absolutely.

The UAE system contains several provisions that substantially strengthen liability without requiring proof of traditional negligence.

For example, the Consumer Protection Law defines a defect as a deficiency in quality, quantity, efficiency, appearance, size or components resulting from an error in design, manufacture, production or supply that causes harm to the consumer or prevents use, provided that the defect did not result from the consumer's own action. (UAE Legislation)

The Product Safety Law separately establishes a safety regime applying to products introduced into the UAE, including products entering free zones, subject to specified exceptions. (UAE Legislation)

Thus, UAE law increasingly places the burden of product safety upon commercial actors rather than leaving consumers to prove every element of negligent conduct.

4. Product Safety Law as a Foundation

Federal Law No. 10 of 2018 on Product Safety is particularly important.

It applies broadly to products introduced into the UAE, including products in free zones, subject to statutory exceptions. (UAE Legislation)

A product can qualify as safe where, among other things, it complies with:

applicable laws;

technical regulations;

compulsory product requirements;

approved safety standards; or

acceptable foreign standards approved under the statutory framework.

Where those standards do not apply, the legislation contemplates a risk-assessment mechanism. (UAE Legislation)

This represents a preventive approach:

Product safety is addressed before harm occurs, rather than waiting for a consumer to suffer injury and then proving negligence.

5. Consumer Protection Law

Federal Law No. 15 of 2020 on Consumer Protection is another major pillar.

The legislation defines:

consumer;

provider;

commodity;

defect;

flaw;

warranty;

related consumer-protection concepts.

Its definition of "commodity" is broad and includes natural, industrial, agricultural, animal, manufactured, intellectual and technological products and their components. (UAE Legislation)

This broad definition is particularly significant for modern product liability involving:

electronic devices;

connected devices;

software-enabled products;

smart appliances;

technology products;

digitally controlled equipment.

6. Difference Between "Defect" and "Flaw"

The Consumer Protection Law distinguishes between a defect and a flaw.

Defect

A defect may result from:

design;

manufacturing;

production;

supply.

It must cause harm or substantially prevent the consumer from using the product.

Flaw

A flaw concerns something that occurs to the commodity after production, causing harm or preventing use, provided it was not caused by consumer misconduct. (UAE Legislation)

This distinction is important for determining responsibility.

For example:

Manufacturing defect → manufacturer

may involve a different analysis from:

Damage arising after delivery through improper storage → distributor/supplier or consumer depending on the circumstances.

7. Expansion Through Consumer-Safety Obligations

The expansion of product liability is visible in the statutory obligations imposed on providers.

The Consumer Protection framework requires providers to ensure compliance with relevant health and safety requirements.

The executive regulations also impose obligations concerning warranties, repair, replacement and refund arrangements. Failure to implement warranties or related consumer obligations can attract administrative penalties. (UAE Legislation)

Thus, liability is increasingly moving beyond:

"Did the manufacturer personally commit negligence?"

toward:

"Did the commercial product-supply system satisfy mandatory safety and consumer-protection obligations?"

8. Latent Defects Under the Current Civil Transactions Law

The new Civil Transactions Law significantly modernises the law of defective sales.

Article 495 provides the purchaser with options where a latent defect appears, including:

returning the goods;

retaining them and seeking a proportionate reduction in price;

allowing the seller to provide a defect-free equivalent in the circumstances contemplated by the legislation. (UAE Legislation)

Article 496 provides that the seller is liable where the sold item:

lacks a guaranteed quality; or

has a defect diminishing its value or utility for the intended purpose.

Importantly, the seller may be liable even if the seller was unaware of the defect. (UAE Legislation)

This is one of the clearest examples of liability approaching a strict or warranty-based model.

9. Seller's Knowledge Is Not Always Necessary

This is a critical examination point.

Under the current Civil Transactions Law, seller liability for the statutory warranty against certain defects does not necessarily depend upon proving that the seller knew about the defect.

Therefore:

Absence of knowledge ≠ automatic absence of liability.

This is different from a pure negligence model in which proving lack of reasonable care may be central.

The law allocates some product risk to the seller because the seller is part of the commercial distribution system.

10. Defences

Strict or warranty-based liability is not unlimited.

The current Civil Transactions Law identifies circumstances in which the seller is not liable for a defect, including situations where:

the defect was disclosed;

the defect is customarily tolerated;

the buyer accepted the defect after inspection or knowledge;

the buyer purchased with knowledge of the defect;

liability was validly excluded, subject to statutory limitations such as fraudulent concealment;

the defect arose after delivery and was not attributable to a pre-existing cause;

the sale occurred through judicial or administrative auction. (UAE Legislation)

Therefore:

Strictness of liability does not eliminate causation, contractual limitations and statutory defences.

11. Expansion of Liability Across the Supply Chain

Modern product liability increasingly involves multiple actors:

Manufacturer → Importer → Distributor → Supplier → Retailer → Consumer

A defective product may therefore generate several potentially relevant legal relationships.

For example:

Manufacturer

Responsible for design/manufacturing/safety issues.

Importer

May have statutory product-safety and consumer obligations concerning products brought into the UAE.

Distributor

May be responsible for warranties and supply obligations.

Retailer

May have contractual obligations toward the consumer.

Consumer

May lose protection where the damage results from misuse or other consumer conduct recognised by law.

This creates a multi-layered responsibility structure.

12. Strict Liability and Causation

Even where the liability regime is strict or warranty-based, causation remains critical.

Suppose a consumer buys a defective vehicle but the accident was actually caused by:

reckless driving;

an unrelated road defect;

subsequent unauthorized modification.

The mere existence of a product defect may not establish liability for the entire loss.

The claimant must connect the defect with the legally relevant damage.

UAE courts have repeatedly treated causation as an essential component of civil liability.

13. Case Law

Direct published UAE appellate decisions dealing exclusively with modern statutory product liability remain relatively limited. Therefore, the following authorities combine direct defective-goods authorities with UAE civil-liability cases establishing principles that apply to product-liability disputes.

This distinction is important because a general tort case should not be described as a product-liability case when it is not one.

Case 1: Dubai Court of Cassation — Food Product/Child Illness Case

A reported Dubai Court of Cassation decision concerned a claim against a multinational company after a child became ill after consuming a milk product.

The first-instance court had awarded compensation, but the Dubai Court of Cassation ultimately rejected the claim.

A significant reason was evidentiary: the claimant had not established with sufficient certainty that the illness resulted from the company's product, and the tested sample could not reliably establish the condition of the product at the time it was consumed. (Gulf News)

Principle

A product-safety allegation still requires proof connecting the product to the damage.

This is particularly important because it shows that UAE product liability is not simply:

injury + product = automatic compensation.

Causation and evidence remain essential.

14. Case 2: Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 402 of 2020

The Dubai Court of Cassation reaffirmed the traditional civil-liability formula:

Fault + Damage + Causal Connection

The Court also emphasised that liability cannot ordinarily be founded on conjecture or speculation.

This principle is directly relevant to product liability where a claimant alleges:

defective product → injury.

The claimant must establish the causal connection rather than merely showing that an injury occurred after using the product.

This authority is particularly important when technical or expert evidence is required.

15. Case 3: Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 33 of 2019

In this case, the Dubai Court of Cassation stated that liability, whether contractual or tortious, requires the relevant elements of liability to coexist.

A breach standing alone is insufficient to establish compensation.

The claimant must establish the damage and the necessary causal connection.

The principle is highly relevant to product liability because a manufacturer may have breached a technical requirement without that breach necessarily causing the particular injury claimed.

The case therefore supports:

Regulatory breach ≠ unlimited compensation.

The claimant must still connect the breach to the legally compensable damage. (DIFC Courts)

16. Case 4: Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 941 of 2019

This case is important for the legal characterisation of liability.

The Dubai Court of Cassation held that the court must give the dispute its correct legal characterisation rather than simply accepting the terminology used by the parties.

The Court also distinguished contractual and tortious liability, explaining that where the parties are connected by a contractual relationship, contractual liability generally governs unless circumstances justify a tortious basis, such as a crime, fraud or sufficiently serious wrongdoing.

Product-liability significance

A consumer's claim against a retailer may be:

contractual;

warranty-based;

tortious;

statutory consumer-protection based;

depending upon the facts.

The claimant's label does not determine the legal basis. The court determines the proper legal characterisation. (eLaws)

17. Case 5: Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 22 of 1999

This older authority concerns a contractor's liability for damage caused by defective work, but it is conceptually important for the expansion of risk-based liability.

The Court treated the contractor's statutory responsibility as extending beyond a simple requirement to prove ordinary negligence and recognised liability for damage generated by the contractor's work unless an unavoidable event or appropriate external cause was established.

Product-liability significance

The case demonstrates a broader UAE civil-law concept:

Where legislation allocates a particular risk to a professional or commercial actor, liability may be stronger than ordinary fault-based liability.

This is conceptually similar to modern product-safety regulation.

18. Case 6: Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 150 of 2007

This authority concerned damage to insured property and the distinction between contractual and tortious liability.

The Court treated certain contractor liability provisions as contractual in nature and recognised the importance of privity when determining who could rely upon those provisions.

Product-liability significance

The case demonstrates that a person harmed by a defective product cannot automatically rely on every contractual warranty existing somewhere in the supply chain.

The claimant must identify the appropriate legal relationship and cause of action.

For example:

Consumer → retailer

may involve a contractual relationship,

while:

Consumer → remote manufacturer

may require a different statutory or tortious foundation.

This distinction is particularly important in complex international supply chains.

19. Case 7: Dubai Court of Cassation — Real Estate Appeal No. 452 of 2017

In this case, the Dubai Court of Cassation considered a claim involving a discrepancy between the property contracted for and the property actually delivered.

The Court recognised compensation arising from the failure to provide the contracted quantity/area.

Although the case concerned real estate rather than a manufactured consumer product, it illustrates the broader UAE principle of conformity between the promised product and the product actually supplied. (Mondaq)

Product-liability significance

The principle translates readily into product transactions:

Product description + contractual specification + actual product

must correspond within the requirements of the applicable law.

20. Case 8: Federal Supreme Court — Civil Cassation No. 880 of 2021

The Federal Supreme Court recognised that compensation can extend beyond immediately identifiable physical damage where the necessary elements are established.

The Court accepted that legally established material damage may include:

present damage;

future damage;

loss of an opportunity.

(eLaws)

Product-liability significance

Where a defective product causes established consequential loss, compensation may potentially extend beyond the immediate repair cost or physical injury, subject to proof and applicable legal limits.

For example:

Defective industrial machine

→ machine damage

→ production interruption

→ demonstrable consequential financial loss.

The claimant must still prove the relevant loss and causation.

21. Case 9: Dubai Court of Cassation — Judgment No. 539 of 2023

Although this was a construction case rather than a consumer-product dispute, it is important for understanding the limits of special liability regimes.

The Court considered alleged defects in design and supervision and refused to impose special decennial liability where the statutory conditions—including proof of relevant structural defects—were not established. (turtl.tamimi.com)

Product-liability significance

A statutory liability regime cannot simply be invoked because a defect exists.

The claimant must establish the specific conditions imposed by the relevant legislation.

This principle prevents "strict liability" from becoming "automatic liability."

22. Case-Law Summary

23. Three Models of UAE Product Liability

The UAE system can be understood through three overlapping models.

Model 1 — Contractual/Warranty Liability

Buyer + seller + defective product

The focus is:

conformity;

warranty;

latent defect;

price reduction;

replacement;

termination;

compensation.

The new Civil Transactions Law strengthens this model by expressly providing seller liability for certain defects even where the seller was unaware of them. (UAE Legislation)

Model 2 — Tortious Liability

Victim + harmful product + no necessary contractual relationship

The claimant generally needs to establish the applicable elements of civil liability, particularly:

wrongful conduct → damage → causation.

Cases such as Dubai Cassation Nos. 402/2020 and 33/2019 illustrate the continuing importance of these elements.

Model 3 — Statutory Consumer/Product Safety Liability

This model is more regulatory.

The focus is:

safe products;

technical standards;

warnings;

product information;

recalls;

warranties;

replacement;

repair;

refund;

health and safety.

Federal Product Safety legislation and the Consumer Protection Law are central here. (UAE Legislation)

24. Product Defect Categories

Modern product-liability analysis normally distinguishes three major defects.

A. Manufacturing Defect

The design is safe, but a particular unit was manufactured incorrectly.

Example:

A batch of batteries contains one improperly sealed unit.

B. Design Defect

The entire product design creates an unreasonable safety problem.

Example:

A machine's safety mechanism is fundamentally inadequate.

C. Warning/Instruction Defect

The product may be physically safe when properly used but inadequate warnings or instructions create foreseeable risk.

Example:

A chemical product fails to warn consumers about a known hazardous interaction.

The UAE's consumer and product-safety framework makes product information and safety obligations increasingly important. (UAE Legislation)

25. Expansion Into Digital Products

The meaning of "product" is becoming broader.

The Consumer Protection Law's definition encompasses technological products. (UAE Legislation)

This creates important questions concerning:

smart devices;

connected vehicles;

wearable devices;

medical technology;

IoT equipment;

AI-enabled machines;

automated appliances;

software-controlled products.

Suppose an autonomous device causes injury because of defective software.

The legal analysis may involve:

Product defect

software malfunction

warning failure

supplier/manufacturer obligations

causation

This represents an important future direction for UAE product liability.

26. AI and Product Liability

AI-enabled products create new forms of potential defect.

Examples include:

Algorithmic defect

The algorithm systematically produces unsafe decisions.

Training-data defect

The system has been trained on inadequate or unsafe information.

Update defect

A software update introduces a dangerous malfunction.

Monitoring defect

The manufacturer fails to detect a known safety problem.

Warning defect

The consumer is not adequately informed about limitations of the AI system.

The traditional distinction between "manufacturing defect" and "software defect" may therefore become increasingly difficult.

27. Expansion from Physical to Economic Harm

Traditional product liability often focuses on:

death;

bodily injury;

property damage.

Modern commerce can create additional losses:

business interruption;

loss of data;

cybersecurity damage;

repair costs;

replacement costs;

loss of use;

consequential economic loss.

However, UAE courts continue to require proof of legally compensable damage and causation rather than awarding damages merely because a product was defective.

The Federal Supreme Court's approach to established future damage and lost opportunity illustrates this broader compensation principle. (eLaws)

28. Product Recalls and Preventive Liability

Product liability is increasingly preventive rather than purely compensatory.

A modern product-safety regime seeks to:

identify unsafe products;

prevent distribution;

notify consumers;

remove dangerous goods;

repair or replace them;

reduce injuries before they occur.

The Product Safety Law's objective and regulatory framework support this preventive model. (UAE Legislation)

Thus:

Modern product liability = compensation + prevention + market safety.

29. Manufacturer's Knowledge and Strict Liability

A key difference between negligence and warranty-based liability is the role of knowledge.

Negligence model

Claimant:

"The manufacturer knew or should have known and failed to take reasonable care."

Strong warranty/strict model

Claimant:

"The product had a legally relevant defect covered by the statutory warranty."

Knowledge may become less important.

Article 496 of the current Civil Transactions Law expressly provides seller liability for qualifying defects even when the seller was unaware of the defect. (UAE Legislation)

30. Consumer Misuse

Strict liability should not be confused with liability for every possible use.

Where the consumer:

modifies the product;

ignores warnings;

uses it for an entirely unintended purpose;

damages it after delivery;

the statutory protection may be reduced or excluded depending upon the applicable law and evidence.

The Consumer Protection Law's definition of defect itself excludes defects resulting from the consumer's own action. (UAE Legislation)

Therefore:

Product defect + proper/foreseeable use

is fundamentally different from:

Product defect + consumer-created damage.

31. Burden of Proof

A major practical issue is who must prove what.

Depending upon the legal basis, the claimant may need to establish:

purchase or possession;

product identity;

defect;

damage;

causation;

relationship with defendant.

Expert evidence can become critical.

For example:

Consumer alleges battery explosion

→ technical inspection

→ battery condition

→ manufacturing records

→ usage history

→ alternative causes

→ expert causal conclusion.

The food-product case demonstrates why evidence connecting the product to the injury is indispensable. (Gulf News)

32. Role of Experts

Product cases frequently involve technical questions beyond ordinary judicial knowledge.

Experts may investigate:

engineering design;

manufacturing process;

chemical composition;

software behaviour;

safety standards;

product testing;

maintenance;

consumer usage;

causal mechanism.

The court ultimately decides the legal question, but technical expert evidence may determine whether the alleged defect and causal relationship are established.

33. Contractual Exclusions of Liability

Manufacturers and sellers may attempt to include clauses limiting liability.

However, consumer-protection and mandatory product-safety provisions can restrict the effectiveness of contractual exclusions.

The Consumer Protection framework expressly addresses contractual conditions that may harm consumers, and the executive regulations establish penalties for specified violations. (UAE Legislation)

Similarly, the current Civil Transactions Law places limits on exclusion of seller liability where statutory exceptions such as fraudulent concealment apply. (UAE Legislation)

Therefore:

Freedom of contract is weaker where mandatory consumer-safety rules apply.

34. Expansion Through Importers and Distributors

International supply chains make manufacturer identification difficult.

A consumer in the UAE may purchase:

Foreign manufacturer → international exporter → UAE importer → UAE distributor → retailer → consumer.

Product-safety legislation therefore needs responsibility at multiple points.

This is one reason why UAE product-safety regulation is broader than simply imposing liability on the ultimate retailer.

35. Strict Liability vs. Absolute Liability

This distinction is essential.

Strict liability

The claimant may not have to prove negligence, but other requirements remain.

For example:

defect + damage + causation

may still be necessary.

Absolute liability

Liability exists regardless of defect, fault, causation or other limitations.

The UAE product-liability framework should not generally be described as an absolute-liability regime.

The food-product case and UAE causation jurisprudence demonstrate why proof remains important. (Gulf News)

36. Expansion of Strict Liability in the UAE

The expansion can be summarised as follows:

Traditional position

Fault-based civil liability

↓

Sale/warranty protection

Seller responsible for qualifying latent defects even without actual knowledge

↓

Consumer protection

Mandatory safety, conformity, warranty and information obligations

↓

Product safety regulation

Preventive safety standards and risk assessment

↓

Modern technology

Connected products, software, AI and digital safety

This is better described as layered strictness rather than a single universal strict-liability doctrine.

37. Main Challenges

1. Causation

Multiple possible causes can make proof difficult.

2. Complex supply chains

The injured consumer may not know which entity caused the defect.

3. Digital products

It can be difficult to classify software defects under traditional product concepts.

4. Artificial intelligence

Autonomous decision-making can make fault attribution difficult.

5. Cross-border manufacturers

The manufacturer may be outside the UAE.

6. Evidence

Technical evidence may be controlled by manufacturers.

7. Product modification

Consumers may modify products after purchase.

8. Warning standards

Determining whether warnings were adequate can require expert analysis.

38. Exam-Oriented Comparison

39. Key Case-Law Lessons

The cases collectively establish several important principles:

A defective-product claim requires proof of causation.

Injury occurring after use does not automatically prove product defect.

Fault, damage and causation remain fundamental under general civil liability.

Contractual and tortious liability must be properly characterised.

Special statutory liability regimes apply only when their conditions are satisfied.

Professional or statutory risk allocation can create liability stronger than ordinary negligence.

Product conformity and contractual specifications are legally significant.

Compensation can extend to established consequential damage.

Consumer misuse may defeat or reduce a product-defect claim.

Modern UAE legislation increasingly emphasises preventive product safety.

40. Conclusion

Product liability in UAE civil law is evolving toward stronger forms of strict and risk-based responsibility, but it has not become a system of absolute liability.

The most important developments are:

Federal Product Safety Law No. 10 of 2018;

Consumer Protection Law No. 15 of 2020;

its Executive Regulations under Cabinet Resolution No. 66 of 2023;

the current Civil Transactions Law under Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025;

stronger rules concerning latent defects and seller warranties;

preventive product-safety regulation;

expansion toward technological and connected products. (UAE Legislation)

The current Civil Transactions Law is especially significant because a seller can be liable for a qualifying defect even without knowledge of that defect, while the law simultaneously provides defined defences and remedies. (UAE Legislation)

The case law shows the other side of the equation: strictness does not eliminate proof of causation and damage. The reported food-product case, Dubai Cassation Nos. 402/2020 and 33/2019, and related civil-liability authorities demonstrate that a claimant must still establish the legal connection between the product problem and the claimed loss. (Gulf News)

Final exam formula

Defective/Unsafe Product + Protected Consumer Relationship + Damage + Causation + Applicable Statutory Duty = Product Liability

And the broader development can be remembered as:

Fault-Based Liability → Warranty Liability → Consumer Protection → Product Safety → Risk-Based/Strict Liability → Digital and AI Product Liability.

Note: Direct reported UAE appellate decisions specifically applying the modern Federal Consumer Protection/Product Safety statutes to individual product-liability claims remain comparatively limited. Accordingly, the case-law section distinguishes the directly relevant defective-product authority from general UAE civil-liability cases that establish principles applicable to product disputes.