The Italian Supreme Court, with decision no. 9001 of April 9, 2026, addressed the issue of the standing to be sued in an action for damages arising from a defective product, noting that the concept of manufacturer of the defective product should not be interpreted narrowly and should also include the distributor.
In its reasoning leading to this conclusion, the Italian Supreme Court quoted the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of December 19, 2024, C-157/23, which stated the following: ‘36 Therefore, a person such as, in the present case, the applicant in the main proceedings, who does not manufacture vehicles, but merely purchases them from the manufacturer of those vehicles in order to distribute them in another Member State, may be considered to be a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 85/374, if, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that directive, it presented itself as such by putting its name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the vehicle in question. 37 By putting his or her name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product at issue, the person who presents him- or herself as a producer gives the impression that he or she is involved in the production process or assumes responsibility for it. Accordingly, by using such particulars, that person is effectively using his or her reputation in order to make that product more attractive in the eyes of consumers which, in return, justifies his or her liability being incurred in respect of that use (judgment of 7 July 2022, Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia, C‑264/21, EU:C:2022:536, paragraph 34)’.
In light of the foregoing, the Italian Supreme Court held that an extension of the supplier’s liability is legally justified, in that the distributor of a product may be treated as equivalent to the manufacturer — in the present case, if the distributor uses its trademark to present the product to consumers — and this is done to ensure greater protection to consumers. This decision is particularly significant, as, based on the aforementioned line of reasoning, it recognizes an expansion of the defendants’ liability in actions for damages, namely that the distributor is liable to respond for the damages caused by the defective product as the manufacturer, in a form of joint liability.
Article by VENTURELLO E BOTTARINI, AVVOCATI
