DAC7 Digital Platform Reporting: What Multi-Country Sellers Must Provide to Marketplaces
17.08.2026
Blank Sailings Cut EU Inbound Capacity: When Ocean Costs More Than Air
18.08.2026
FLEX. Logistics
We provide logistics services to online retailers in Europe: Amazon FBA prep, processing FBA removal orders, forwarding to Fulfillment Centers - both FBA and Vendor shipments.
A non-EU brand selling into Europe usually assumes liability for a defective product sits with the manufacturer, full stop. That assumption gets tested by Directive (EU) 2024/2853, which replaces the 1985-era product liability framework and, once Member States transpose it by 9 December 2026, applies to products placed on the market after that date. The directive keeps the manufacturer as the primary liable party, but it also builds a cascade that can pull liability down to whoever is EU-based in the supply chain — including, in some cases, a fulfilment service provider that never took ownership of the goods. For a brand shipping into Europe through a 3PL or an e-commerce fulfillment service without a properly documented EU importer or authorised representative, this is not an abstract legal footnote. It is a supply-chain setup question that needs an answer before 2026, not after a claim arrives.
What Actually Changes on 9 December 2026
The old 1985 directive (85/374/EEC) does not disappear overnight. Directive 2024/2853 applies to products placed on the market or put into service after the transposition deadline, while the 1985 framework continues to govern products already on the market before that date. This is a transition, not an abrupt cutover — existing inventory already circulating in the EU stays under the old rules, but new stock entering after the cutoff falls under the revised directive.
The core shift is not the standard of liability itself but who can be held liable when the manufacturer sits outside the EU. The directive was written with exactly that scenario in mind: a growing share of products sold to EU consumers are manufactured by companies with no EU legal presence at all, often reaching consumers through marketplaces, DTC storefronts, or B2C e-commerce fulfillment service arrangements run through a 3PL.
The Cascade Structure
Article 8 sets out a defined order, not a free-for-all. Liability starts with the manufacturer, including for a defective component supplied to them. If the manufacturer has no EU establishment, liability passes to an EU-based importer — the entity that actually brought the product into the EU market. If there is no EU importer, it passes next to the manufacturer's EU-based authorised representative, a role usually formalised through a written mandate.
Only when none of those three exist in the EU does liability extend further, to the fulfilment service provider. That is a deliberate last-resort position in the cascade, not a default one, and it only activates when the earlier links are genuinely absent from the EU market.
Why the Fulfilment Definition Matters
The directive defines a fulfilment service provider narrowly: a business offering at least two of commercial warehousing, packaging, addressing, or dispatching of products, without ever taking ownership of the goods. This definition explicitly excludes pure postal or freight and delivery services — a carrier moving boxes from A to B does not fall into this liability position simply by handling the parcel.
That narrow scope matters because it means a straightforward carrier relationship does not create this exposure. But a 3PL running warehousing, labelling, and dispatch together — the normal shape of pre-Amazon storage or an outsourced e-commerce fulfillment service — fits the definition precisely, which is why the role assignment upstream has to be documented, not assumed.
The Distributor Is Not the Same Risk Position
Distributors sit differently in this structure. A distributor carries only subsidiary liability, and only if it fails to identify the relevant upstream economic operator — the manufacturer, importer, or authorised representative — within one month of a claimant's request. In practice, a distributor that keeps clean records of who supplied it and can name that party quickly is unlikely to face this exposure at all.
The same logic extends to online platforms under the new rules: a marketplace or platform that presents a product in a way that leads a consumer to reasonably believe the platform itself is the supplier can be held liable, unless it identifies the responsible economic operator. The pattern across the whole directive is consistent — liability follows whoever the consumer cannot otherwise trace, so traceability itself becomes the practical defence.
Why This Is a Supply-Chain Question, Not Just a Legal One
The practical takeaway is straightforward but easy to miss. A non-EU brand that already has a properly documented EU importer or a formally appointed EU-based authorised representative is not meaningfully changing its risk position under the new directive — the cascade simply confirms what was already true in practice. Liability sits where it has traditionally sat, with a clearly named party who holds that role on paper.
The exposure shows up for brands operating informally: shipping stock into Europe through a 3PL or forwarding arrangement with no importer of record, no authorised representative mandate, and no written agreement stating who holds which role. In that setup, if a claim arises and no importer or authorised representative can be identified in the EU, the cascade does not stop — it moves to whichever EU-based party was doing the warehousing, packaging, and dispatching, whether or not that party ever agreed to carry that risk.
What Keeps Liability Where It Belongs
Brands that want liability to stay with the manufacturer or a designated importer need three things in place before goods move: a formally appointed EU importer of record or an authorised representative with a signed mandate, documentation showing which entity holds which role for each product line, and a written agreement with any logistics or fulfilment partner clarifying that the partner is not acting as importer or authorised representative.
None of this is exotic. It is the same discipline already expected around EORI registration and customs declarations — a named responsible party, on paper, before the goods arrive.
What Happens Without It
Without a documented importer or authorised representative, the fulfilment partner handling warehousing, labelling, and dispatch can become the only EU-based party left standing when a claim is traced. That partner did not manufacture the product, did not price the liability risk into its service fee, and likely never agreed to hold that position.
This is not a theoretical gap. It is the direct result of treating a 3PL relationship as purely operational — pallets in, cartons out — while leaving the legal role of importer or authorised representative undefined. The fix is not complicated, but it has to happen before inventory moves, not after a dispute starts.
An Owner Map for the Cascade
Picture a non-EU brand shipping directly to a fulfilment center in Germany for onward distribution, with no EU entity of its own. If that brand has appointed a formal EU importer, that importer sits second in the cascade after the manufacturer — full stop. If instead the brand has only a loose agreement with its logistics provider to receive, label, and ship goods, and no importer or authorised representative exists anywhere in the EU, the fulfilment provider becomes the last name on the list the directive can reach.
The owner map is simple to state and easy to neglect: manufacturer, then EU importer, then EU authorised representative, then — only as a last resort — the fulfilment service provider. Each brand should be able to say, in writing, which of those roles is filled and by whom, for every product line sold into the EU.
Where This Gets Missed in Practice
The mistake is rarely deliberate. A brand sets up an e-commerce fulfillment service arrangement to handle European inbound, storage, and dispatch, and treats that arrangement as purely logistical. Nobody signs anything clarifying that the fulfilment partner is not the importer of record. Nobody registers an authorised representative because the brand assumes its distributor or marketplace account handles that layer.
Years later, the brand has scaled, added SKUs, and switched fulfilment partners more than once — and the paperwork trail showing who was importer of record for which shipment, in which period, has never existed. If a defect claim surfaces on a product placed on the market after the 2026 transition, tracing the cascade backward from the fulfilment provider becomes the path of least resistance for a claimant, precisely because no earlier link in the chain was ever documented.
Documents to have in place per product line:
- Written mandate naming the EU authorised representative, if used
- Importer-of-record documentation tied to each shipment
- Signed agreement with the fulfilment or 3PL partner clarifying its role
- Records confirming who supplied the distributor, kept current
Checks before the 2026 transition:
- Confirm which entity is currently acting as EU importer, if any
- Confirm whether an authorised representative mandate exists and is current
- Review fulfilment contracts for role clarity, not just service scope
- Flag product lines with no documented importer or representative
Sequencing the Fix Before December 2026
The practical sequence starts with an inventory of product lines and their current supply-chain documentation, not with rewriting contracts blind. First, identify which products are manufactured outside the EU and confirm whether an EU importer or authorised representative is already named for each. Second, where that role is missing or undocumented, decide who will hold it — a group entity, a dedicated importer service, or a formally appointed representative — before the transposition deadline, not after.
Third, once the importer or representative role is settled, revisit agreements with any fulfilment or logistics partner handling warehousing, packaging, addressing, or dispatch in the EU. The agreement should state plainly that the partner is not acting as importer or authorised representative, and that its role is limited to the operational scope of Amazon FC forwarding, storage, or order fulfilment it was actually contracted for. This sequencing keeps the legal role and the operational role separate on paper, which is exactly what the cascade in Article 8 is testing for.
A Field Example Worth Walking Through
Take a US-based brand using a European 3PL partner for storage, carton labelling, and dispatch to marketplace buyers across the EU. The brand has never formally appointed an EU importer, assuming its distributor agreement covers that ground. It does not.
Under the revised cascade, if the manufacturer cannot be reached from the EU and no importer or authorised representative is on record, the fulfilment partner — because it performs at least two of warehousing, packaging, and dispatching without owning the goods — becomes the party the cascade lands on. A written agreement stating the 3PL is not the importer would not remove the legal question entirely, but it strengthens the brand's position considerably and gives the fulfilment partner a documented basis to push the claim back up the chain.
Manufacturer
Primary liability holder, including for defective components sourced from suppliers. Stays first in the cascade regardless of where the product is sold.
EU Importer
Second in line if the manufacturer sits outside the EU. Needs formal documentation naming the entity for each shipment, not an informal arrangement.
Fulfilment Provider
Last resort only, and only if no EU importer or authorised representative exists. Applies to warehousing, packaging, addressing, or dispatch without ownership of goods.
What to Decide Before the 2026 Transition
The decision in front of a non-EU brand is not whether the directive applies — it will, to products placed on the market after 9 December 2026 — but whether the brand's current EU supply-chain setup names an importer or authorised representative clearly enough to keep liability where it has traditionally sat. If that role is already documented, the practical exposure barely shifts. If it is not, the cascade has a default answer, and it may not be the answer the brand expects.
The fix is a paperwork exercise before it is a legal one: confirm the importer or representative role per product line, put it in writing, and make sure any agreement covering pre-Amazon storage, carton labelling, or dispatch through a fulfilment partner states plainly what that partner is and is not responsible for. That single step is what separates a brand that is unaffected by the cascade from one that has quietly handed liability to its logistics provider.
This is a legal and regulatory question first, and brands should confirm their EU importer or authorised representative status with qualified legal counsel before the 2026 transposition deadline. Contact the FLEX. team if your current setup leaves that role undefined — FLEX. can support sellers with documentation and supply-chain clarity around this cascade, with clear agreements on what our role covers as a fulfilment partner, and what it does not. FLEX. is not positioned to absorb liability that belongs with a manufacturer, importer, or authorised representative, and any partner in that position should be able to say the same.
