UK law has gaps in online shopping safety – here’s how it impacts product liability claims

Internet shopping has fast become second nature to many people and it’s understandable why – the convenience of getting what you want at the click of a button and receiving it in a matter of days, even if it comes from the other side of the world. With Black Friday approaching, many people will be looking online for bargains.

But what’s not always clear is how safe these products are, and what legal rights people have if something goes wrong with their new purchase. While a well-known online marketplace may appear trustworthy, it can be difficult to identify who made a product or where the seller is based. If a product turns out to be defective and causes an injury, this can make it harder for consumers to establish who is responsible and seek compensation.

Online marketplaces and product safety law

Online marketplaces like Amazon, Temu and the like are commonplace nowadays but as legitimate as the store front may appear, customers may have little knowledge about where the seller is actually based and who or where the product was made. 

The UK Government has cottoned on to this and has taken steps to address the grey areas around online shopping, product safety requirements and consumer rights. However, progress is slow. 

The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 gives officials broad powers but does not put the real reforms required into effect. The Law Commission has now published its consultation paper on reviewing the UK’s product liability laws however recommendations for reform will not be published until the end of 2027. 

Until then there remain considerable gaps in the safety net to consumers.

Common problems with online shopping

Consumers may buy a product through a well-known platform without knowing who manufactured it or where the seller is based. If the product turns out to be unsafe it can then be difficult working out or tracing who is responsible.

The Government proposed new duties for online marketplaces including checking seller information, helping to identify unsafe products, removing dangerous listings and cooperating with regulators. These measures could make a difference, but they only go so far.

For example, unsafe products can be removed from a platform, but they could then reappear under a different seller name. Arguably, a stronger system would see marketplaces verify their sellers and act quickly when unsafe products are identified then take steps to prevent repeat listings – additionally, this stronger system could then issue reports or flags to regulators for further consideration.

Who is responsible when an overseas product causes injury?

Another key problem is that many online sellers and foreign manufacturers also have little or no presence in the UK – this makes any kind of enforcement very difficult as UK authorities would not have jurisdiction to take any action. 

The UK could instead consider requiring consumer products sold here to have a clearly identifiable UK-based organisation responsible for product safety. This could be a manufacturer, importer, authorised representative or fulfilment provider.

Having a responsible person in the UK would give consumers and regulators a clear point of contact and make it easier to take action when something goes wrong.

How software and AI challenge product liability law

Traditional product safety laws were largely designed around physical products, but these laws may no longer be fit for purpose around issues like apps, software or streaming platforms. AI creates further challenges because it may be difficult for a consumer to understand why a product behaved in a particular way.

The Law Commission’s review provides an opportunity to consider whether the law should clearly cover software, AI, connected products and post-sale updates, and whether cybersecurity weaknesses or harmful AI behaviour can amount to a product defect.

Can you claim compensation for an unsafe product?

To be clear, product safety enforcement and compensation are not the same thing.

A regulator may require a dangerous product to be removed or recalled but that does not mean someone who has been injured will automatically get compensation.

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is still at the core of UK product liability law, but a pursuer still has to prove the product was defective, and that defect caused their injury.

What makes this particularly challenging is that in a lot of cases the evidence needed to prove a defect is often held by the manufacturer.

For obvious reasons these manufacturers almost never hand this information over willingly (from their point of view, why would they help you sue them?) and if they are in a foreign country our own court orders could prove ineffective. 

The EU is aware of these issues and responded by introducing measures which can help consumers obtain relevant evidence, including court-ordered disclosure and circumstances where defects or causation may be presumed.

How UK product safety rules compare with EU regulation 

The EU has already introduced significant reforms such as the General Product Safety Regulation and the Product Liability Directive. These include stronger obligations for online marketplaces, improved traceability and a requirement for a responsible economic operator for products sold in the EU. They also take software, AI and data-related damage into account. 

So far, only Northern Ireland is adopting  these updated EU reforms. But the rest of the UK risks being exposed to the gaps and loopholes that, ultimately, will leave consumers at risk with little protection and even fewer routes to compensation or fair outcomes if left as it is. 

What should the UK Government do to help consumers?

The UK now has the legislative foundation to modernise product regulation. The next step is to turn that foundation into clear and effective protections.

In particular, the UK could consider:

• a UK-based responsible person for consumer products sold here
• clear and enforceable duties on online marketplaces
• stronger traceability and product information
• rules covering software, AI, cybersecurity and post-sale updates
• better routes to compensation when defective products cause harm
• evidential rules that recognise the difficulty consumers face when important technical information is held by manufacturers

The priority should be to close these gaps quickly and coherently, while maintaining compatibility with the EU and Northern Ireland. Doing so would strengthen consumer protection and provide greater certainty for businesses operating across borders.

Because ultimately, buying something online should not mean people have to sacrifice their safety or their rights.