Consumer Protection Act and Product Liability: What Manufacturers Must Know

Your electronics company manufactures smart home devices sold through UK retailers. A component sourced from China fails, causing a house fire. The homeowner sues under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Your defence: “We exercised all reasonable care in selecting suppliers and quality testing.”

The court’s response: Irrelevant. Under Consumer Protection Act strict liability, you’re liable for defective products regardless of care exercised. The only question is whether the product was defective and caused the injury—not whether you were negligent.

Understanding Consumer Protection Act product liability fundamentals determines how manufacturers approach design, testing, warnings, and insurance—the strict liability regime makes insurance essential rather than optional risk management.

This article explains Consumer Protection Act 1987 key provisions, how “defect” is defined, who can be held liable, available defences, and practical implications for manufacturers.

Consumer Protection Act 1987: The Strict Liability Framework

The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA) implements the EU Product Liability Directive in UK law, creating strict liability for defective products.

Strict liability explained:

Manufacturers, importers, and suppliers are liable for injuries caused by defective products regardless of fault, negligence, or reasonable care exercised.

Traditional negligence claims require proving the manufacturer was careless. CPA eliminates this requirement—liability exists if the product was defective and caused harm, full stop.

Who the CPA protects:

Any person injured by defective products, not just purchasers or users. Bystanders, family members of purchasers, anyone affected by product defects can claim under CPA.

What the CPA covers:

Defects in products causing death, personal injury, or property damage exceeding £275.

Property damage must be to private property (consumer use), not commercial property used in business.

Pure economic loss without injury or property damage is not covered under CPA (though may be recoverable under contract law or negligence).

The significance for manufacturers:

CPA creates unavoidable liability exposure for defective products. Insurance is the only practical risk transfer mechanism—you cannot contract out of CPA liability or eliminate it through quality management (though good QM reduces defect probability).

According to UK Ministry of Justice civil liability statistics, product liability claims under the Consumer Protection Act represent approximately 3-5% of all personal injury claims annually, demonstrating the material exposure manufacturers face under strict liability.

Product Liability Insurance UK: When Tech Hardware and Life Sciences Need Cover →

How “Defect” Is Defined Under CPA

Section 3 of the CPA defines when products are defective—the central concept determining liability.

The statutory test (CPA s.3(1)):

“There is a defect in a product if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect.”

This is objective test based on reasonable expectations, not subjective assessment by individual consumers.

Factors considered in assessing defect:

Product presentation and marketing. How the product is marketed, instructions provided, warnings given, representations made about safety or use.

If marketing suggests product is safe for particular use but it’s not, that creates defect.

Reasonable use and foreseeable misuse. Products must be safe for intended use and reasonably foreseeable misuse.

If children are likely to access products despite being marketed for adults, design must account for child safety.

Time product was supplied. Safety expectations reflect knowledge and standards at time of supply, not current standards with hindsight.

A product meeting 1995 safety standards isn’t defective in 1995 just because 2025 standards are higher.

All circumstances of the product. Overall context including price point, product category, alternatives available.

Budget products aren’t expected to have premium safety features, but must still meet basic safety expectations for the category.

Three categories of product defects:

Manufacturing defects. Product differs from design specifications due to production errors. Example: Contamination during manufacturing, assembly errors, component failures.

Design defects. Product manufactured correctly to design, but design itself is unsafe. Example: Inadequate structural strength, missing safety features, inherently dangerous design.

Warning defects (failure to warn). Product is potentially safe if used correctly with warnings, but inadequate warnings provided. Example: Allergen declarations missing, hazard warnings inadequate, use instructions unclear.

All three defect types create CPA liability if they cause injury or damage.

Who Can Be Held Liable Under CPA

CPA creates liability for multiple parties in the supply chain.

The producer (primary liability).

Manufacturer of finished product, producer of component parts incorporated into products, processors of raw materials.

“Producer” includes anyone who “wins or abstracts” the product (mining, quarrying, farming).

Importers bringing products into UK from outside EU are treated as producers for CPA purposes.

Own-branders.

Companies that apply their brand to products manufactured by others are treated as producers for CPA purposes.

If you rebrand third-party products, you assume producer liability even though you didn’t manufacture them.

Suppliers (secondary liability).

Retailers, distributors, and wholesalers can be liable if they fail to identify the producer when requested by injured party.

Suppliers escape liability by identifying the producer, their own supplier, or the importer within reasonable time.

Component manufacturers.

If component defect causes injury in finished product, component manufacturer is liable alongside finished product manufacturer.

Both parties may be sued; courts apportion liability based on relative fault.

The practical effect for manufacturers:

Multiple parties can be liable for same defect. Injured parties typically sue everyone in the chain and let courts sort out contribution.

Insurance coordinates this: Product liability policies respond regardless of whether you’re primary manufacturer, component supplier, or own-brander.

Available Defences Under CPA

CPA strict liability has limited defences—proving you exercised reasonable care is not a defence.

Development risk defence (CPA s.4(1)(e)):

Product defect was not discoverable given scientific and technical knowledge available when product was supplied.

This is narrowly interpreted: Defence succeeds only if knowledge of defect was genuinely inaccessible to science at the time, not merely that your company didn’t know.

Compliance with regulatory requirements defence (CPA s.4(1)(a)):

Product complied with mandatory legal requirements that prevented defect from being eliminated.

Rare in practice—most regulations set minimum standards, not maximum safety requirements.

Component manufacturer defence (CPA s.4(1)(f)):

If you manufactured component incorporated into another product, and defect was attributable to design of final product or instructions given by final product manufacturer.

Shifts liability from component maker to final assembler in some circumstances.

Product not supplied in course of business (CPA s.4(1)(c)):

Hobbyists, one-off makers, and non-commercial producers can claim this defence.

Not available to companies manufacturing products commercially.

Defences that do NOT work:

“We exercised all reasonable care” → Not a defence under CPA strict liability

“The defect was caused by our supplier” → Not a defence (though you may have recovery rights against supplier)

“The product met industry standards” → Not a defence if still defective under CPA safety test

“We warned users about the risk” → Only works if warnings were adequate to make product safe

Limitation Periods Under CPA

Time limits for bringing claims affect long-tail liability exposure.

Primary limitation (CPA s.6(6)):

10 years from date the product was supplied by the producer.

Claims must be brought within 10 years of supply, regardless of when injury occurred or was discovered.

This is longer than standard personal injury limitation (3 years from injury/knowledge) but absolute—no claims beyond 10 years.

Three-year knowledge-based period:

Within the 10-year long-stop, claims must be brought within 3 years of:

• Date of injury, or
• Date claimant had knowledge sufficient to justify proceedings

The practical implication:

Manufacturers face liability tail of up to 10 years post-supply. Products supplied today create potential liability through 2034.

This long-tail exposure requires:

• Maintaining continuous product liability insurance (gaps create uninsured exposure for products supplied during gaps)
• Preserving design files, testing records, and quality documentation for 10+ years
• Considering extended reporting period insurance when ceasing operations

Interaction with Other Legal Frameworks

CPA coexists with other liability regimes—injured parties can choose most favourable route.

CPA vs negligence claims:

Negligence requires proving manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care. CPA requires only proving product was defective.

Injured parties typically pursue CPA claims (easier to prove) but may add negligence claims alternatively.

CPA vs contractual claims:

Buyers have contract claims against sellers for breach of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, or contractual warranties.

These contract claims are separate from and additional to CPA statutory rights.

CPA vs sector-specific regulations:

Medical devices, food products, consumer goods have additional regulatory frameworks (MHRA, FSA, Office for Product Safety and Standards).

Regulatory violations may trigger enforcement actions separate from civil liability under CPA.

The significance for insurance:

Product liability policies cover CPA strict liability claims, negligence claims, and usually regulatory defence costs—providing comprehensive coverage across multiple liability theories.

Product Liability for Medical Devices: UK Regulatory Requirements →

Practical Risk Management Under CPA

Since strict liability can’t be eliminated, manufacturers manage risk through design, testing, and insurance.

Design phase risk reduction:

Conduct thorough design risk assessments, design for foreseeable misuse not just intended use, incorporate safety features preventing foreseeable harm, design products to fail safely when components malfunction.

Manufacturing quality control:

Implement robust quality management systems (ISO 9001, sector-specific standards), conduct batch testing and inspection protocols, maintain supplier qualification and component testing, establish traceability allowing defect isolation to specific batches.

Warnings and instructions:

Provide clear, prominent warnings about non-obvious risks, include instructions for safe use and maintenance, translate warnings and instructions for all target markets, use symbols and pictograms where language barriers exist.

Post-market surveillance:

Monitor customer complaints and incident reports, investigate patterns suggesting systematic defects, implement field safety corrective actions when issues identified, maintain incident databases supporting trend analysis.

Documentation retention:

Preserve design files, risk assessments, and design verification records for 10+ years, maintain testing protocols and results, document supplier qualifications and component specifications, keep records of post-market surveillance and corrective actions.

Insurance as essential risk transfer:

Since CPA creates liability regardless of care exercised, insurance is the only mechanism transferring financial risk.

Quality management reduces defect probability but can’t eliminate liability if defects occur despite best efforts.

The Bottom Line

Consumer Protection Act 1987 creates strict liability for defective products causing death, personal injury, or property damage exceeding £275. Manufacturers are liable regardless of fault, negligence, or reasonable care exercised.

“Defect” is defined as products not as safe as persons generally entitled to expect, considering presentation, use, time of supply, and all circumstances. Three defect categories: manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects (failure to warn).

Multiple parties can be liable: producers (manufacturers), importers, own-branders, component manufacturers, and suppliers (if they fail to identify producer). Injured parties typically sue all parties in supply chain.

Limited defences: development risk (defect undiscoverable by science at the time), regulatory compliance (rare), component manufacturer (shifts to final assembler). “We exercised reasonable care” is NOT a defence.

Ten-year limitation from supply creates long-tail exposure—products supplied today create potential liability through next decade. Requires continuous insurance, document retention, and consideration of extended reporting periods.

Since strict liability can’t be eliminated through care or quality management, insurance becomes essential risk transfer mechanism—not optional protection but fundamental operational necessity for product manufacturers.

Practical approach: implement robust design and quality management (reduces defect probability), maintain comprehensive documentation (supports defence of claims), arrange adequate product liability insurance (transfers financial risk), and maintain continuous coverage without gaps (products create liability for decade post-supply).

The CPA framework makes product liability insurance transition from discretionary risk management to essential operational protection—strict liability means even well-managed manufacturers face unavoidable exposure requiring insurance coverage.

External Resource

UK Ministry of Justice – Civil Liability Statistics. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly. “According to UK Ministry of Justice civil liability statistics, product liability claims under the Consumer Protection Act represent approximately 3-5% of all personal injury claims annually, demonstrating the material exposure manufacturers face under strict liability.” UK government department, publishes official statistics on civil litigation and liability claims.

 

Simplify Stream provides educational content about business insurance for UK companies, especially those with high growth business models that require specialist insurance market knowledge. We don't sell policies or provide regulated advice, just clear explanations from people who've worked on the underwriting and broking side.