who is liable if there is incorrect data in the product passport

What you must concretely do

What is expected of you

The ESPR places the responsibility for the accuracy of data in the digital product passport with the person who places the product on the market. This is usually the manufacturer, but can also be the importer when representing manufacturers based outside the EU. Who exactly has which role is described on the page Who is responsible for the steel product passport? — that distinction is decisive for the question of who must be able to substantiate the data.

Providing correct and complete data (Article 27 ESPR)

Article 27 of the ESPR describes the obligations of manufacturers, including ensuring that the product and associated information comply with the requirements applicable to that product. For a business with 10 to 100 employees, this means in practice that someone within the organisation must be able to point to where a piece of data in the passport comes from — a test report, a certificate from a supplier, an internal measurement. Without that substantiation, a piece of data in the passport is a claim without evidence.

Ensuring the passport meets technical requirements (Article 9 ESPR)

Article 9 of the ESPR describes what a digital product passport must contain and how it must be accessible via the QR data carrier. This concerns not only the content, but also the form: a passport that contains correct data but does not meet the structure or accessibility requirements is equally defective. For companies selling under their own brand, this is a point of attention that is often underestimated; the page I sell steel under my own brand — what obligations do I get? explains when that responsibility shifts to the brand owner.

Using the correct testing, measurement and calculation methods (Article 39 ESPR)

Article 39 of the ESPR requires that data must be established using reliable, accurate and reproducible methods. For a metal processor or steel trader who takes over data from a supplier, this means that the origin of a figure — for example a composition or an environmental characteristic — must be traceable to a method that meets those requirements. Anyone who does not have their own laboratory relies on the documentation of the party that carried out the measurement.

No circumvention or deterioration of performance (Article 40 ESPR)

Article 40 of the ESPR aims to prevent practices in which a product is designed or presented in such a way that it performs better than its actual performance, or in which performance deteriorates once it is no longer being tested. For steel semi-finished products, this is less a matter of "cheating software" and more a matter of consistency: the data in the passport must correspond to what is actually in the batch, also in subsequent deliveries of the same specification.

Where things go wrong in practice

A few situations in which incorrect data arise in practice:

• A supplier delivers a certificate that belongs to a different composition than the batch actually delivered, and nobody checks this before the data ends up in the passport.
• Data is manually retyped from a paper certificate into the digital system, and an error occurs in a figure or unit.
• A company takes over data from the manufacturer without knowing that it itself, as an importer from outside the EU, is responsible for the accuracy — see the explanation on Am I an importer or manufacturer under the ESPR?.
• A distributor makes no changes to the product, but places its own label or packaging over it and does not realise that this may have consequences for who is held accountable — further explanation is provided at What obligations does a steel distributor or trader have?.
• Data is recorded at one moment in time, but the production process changes afterwards — a different alloy, a different supplier of raw material — without the passport being updated.

What you can document

• An overview of each piece of data in the passport with the corresponding source: test report, certificate, internal measurement, or information from a supplier.
• Agreements with suppliers about which party supplies which data and who is responsible for its accuracy, for example laid down in a supplier agreement or purchase terms and conditions.
• An internal process for updating the passport in the event of changes in composition, origin or production process.
• A control step before data is definitively entered in the passport — who signs off finally, and on the basis of which documents.
• Evidence of the test, measurement or calculation method used for each piece of data, so that it can be demonstrated in case of questions that the method is in line with what Article 39 of the ESPR describes.

Anyone who cannot organise this internally may consider outsourcing it; the considerations in this regard are described on the page do I need extra staff for the product passport or can I outsource it. The question of who is ultimately liable in case of incorrect data — the manufacturer, the importer, or a party that sells the product under its own brand — is at this moment not yet possible to answer with certainty in all situations on the basis of the current text of the ESPR. What is certain: the obligation to substantiate data rests with the party that places the product on the market, and that obligation exists independently of whether there is already a delegated act for steel. As soon as clarity emerges on this, this page will be updated.