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

The manufacturer is primarily responsible

The obligation to ensure that the data in the product passport is correct lies with the person who places the product on the market — usually the manufacturer, and for aluminium from outside the EU the importer. Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) places on the manufacturer the duty to ensure that the product and the associated information comply with what the regulations require, and that also applies to the content of the digital product passport as described in Article 9 of the ESPR. Whoever supplies the data on alloy, origin, recycling content or environmental impact is therefore also the person responsible if that data proves to be incorrect. This is not a penalty system with a fixed amount — the text of the ESPR itself concerns the obligation to supply correct data, not the sanction that follows. Those sanctions are determined by each Member State, and this page deliberately contains nothing that cannot be found in the source text.

For whom this applies, and where the boundary lies

This liability primarily affects the party that compiled and supplied the data: for aluminium semi-finished products usually the manufacturer or, in the case of imports from outside the EU, the importer who in that case takes over part of the manufacturer's obligations. Anyone who is unsure whether that role applies to them will find a more detailed explanation on the page Am I an importer or manufacturer according to the ESPR?. A distributor or trader who merely resells the aluminium without compiling the data themselves has a different position: that party must generally check that a passport is present, but is not the person responsible for the accuracy of the underlying content — that difference is explained on the page on obligations of a distributor or trader. Anyone selling aluminium under their own brand finds themselves in yet another position: Article 27 addresses the situation in which a party presents itself as a manufacturer, and that can have consequences for who must be able to substantiate which data, as described on the page on selling under own brand. This page concerns the question of who is responsible for the accuracy of data — not the question of who technically creates the passport or how long it must be kept; that is a different question with a different answer.

What is already established, and what is not

There is no fixed date yet on which the obligations regarding the digital product passport for aluminium come into effect. The ESPR is the framework regulation; the specific requirements for aluminium products will come in a delegated act which, according to the European Commission's work plan for 2025-2030, is expected in 2027. Once that act is published, that date will be mentioned here. Until then, the general principle from Article 27 already applies: whoever discloses data about a product is responsible for its accuracy, regardless of whether the digital passport is yet mandatory. In other words — responsibility for incorrect data is not a new concept that only arises with the passport, it is an elaboration of an obligation that already exists in the framework regulation.

What this means for those compiling a passport now

Anyone already supplying data for a product passport is well advised to first establish who in the chain supplied which data and on the basis of which underlying documents — melting certificates, test reports, supplier declarations. Article 39 of the ESPR describes that data must be based on reliable, accurate and reproducible test, measurement and calculation methods, which means that a manufacturer who takes data from a supplier is well advised to know what that data is based on. When changing a supplier, that is a moment to review again whether the underlying data is still correct, as also explained on the page on changing supplier. When delivering to a brand owner who completes the passport further, it is important to record which data have been supplied by whom, something that is discussed in more detail on the page on private label supply. Furthermore, it is advisable to take into account Article 40 of the ESPR, which concerns the prevention of circumvention and performance degradation: data that are correct at the time of testing but in practice do not correspond to actual performance also fall under that provision. For those encountering this subject matter for the first time, a general introduction can be found on the page What is a digital product passport for aluminium?

Where this is based on: Article 27, 9, 39 and 40 ESPR

The obligation to ensure correct data follows from Article 27 of the ESPR, which governs the general obligations of manufacturers. Article 9 describes what the digital product passport contains and what information must be included in it. Article 39 sets requirements for the methods by which data are determined, and Article 40 is aimed at preventing products from performing differently than the data suggest. Together, these articles form the basis for the question of who is responsible for the content of the passport, without the ESPR itself specifying a fine or enforcement period — that interpretation follows from national enforcement legislation, which has not been used as a source here.

For those wishing to ascertain what role they themselves have in the chain, the starting point is the page on who is responsible for the product passport of aluminium, and from there they determine which of the situations mentioned above comes closest to their own position in the chain.

What this is based on

The regulation itself is on EUR-Lex. We refer per statement; you do not have to take our word for it.

What you must concretely do

What is expected of you

The manufacturer is responsible for the content

Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) sets out the obligations for the preparation of technical documentation and the correct transmission of product information with the manufacturer. This is the starting point: whoever makes the product or places it on the market under their own name is the party who supplies the data in the passport and is therefore responsible for its accuracy. For a company with 10 to 100 employees, this means in practice that someone within the organisation must be able to point to where a value in the passport comes from — a test report, a calculation, a declaration from a supplier. If that is not at hand, they cannot substantiate to a supervisory authority or customer why a data point is correct when asked. Which role a company exactly fulfils — manufacturer, importer or something else — is not always self-evident; see who is responsible for the digital product passport of aluminium? for the baseline on that.

The passport must match the physical product

Article 9 of the ESPR describes what a digital product passport must contain and how it must be linked to the product via a data carrier. This sounds technical, but the essence is simple: the data in the passport should correspond with the product that is actually attached to it. For aluminium semi-finished products, this concerns matters such as composition, origin of the material and recycling content. For a production company, this means that a change in the alloy, the casting process or the origin of the scrap must be reflected in an adjustment of the passport — otherwise a discrepancy arises between what is stated and what is actually there.

Measurement methods must be traceable

Article 39 of the ESPR concerns the test, measurement and calculation methods used to determine product information. A figure in the passport — for example on recycling content or energy consumption in production — is not just a number, it is the result of a method. For a company, this means that the measurement or calculation method used is fixed and can be traced back, so that when asked afterwards, it is clear how a value was determined and not only what that value is.

Circumvention and performance degradation are separately identified

Article 40 of the ESPR aims to prevent circumvention of requirements and degradation of performance, for example by testing or configuring a product in such a way that it performs more favourably than it would in normal use. For aluminium semi-finished products, this is relevant when test conditions deviate from the practice in which the material is processed. A company that selects the test conditions is well advised to be able to justify those conditions as representative.

Where things go wrong in practice

A few situations come up repeatedly in practice.

Outdated data after a process adjustment. A foundry adjusts the melting process or the scrap ratio, but the passport of previously supplied batches is not updated. The data in the passport then no longer matches what was actually delivered.

Adoption of figures without source document. Data on recycled content is adopted from a supplier without requesting or retaining the underlying evidence. If questions arise later, it is no longer possible to trace where the figure came from.

Change of supplier without updating the passport. A company switches aluminium supplier, but the composition or origin data in the passport remain unchanged. What needs to be arranged for this type of situation is described in what must I arrange for the passport if I change supplier.

Lack of clarity about who supplies the source data in private label. A brand owner has aluminium produced under its own brand, but the technical data come from the supplier. If it is not clear who supplies and verifies which part of the data, a grey area emerges if something goes wrong. For more information on this, see who is responsible for the passport if I supply aluminium to a brand owner.

Test conditions that do not correspond to actual use. A measured value was correctly determined according to a recognised method, but under conditions that differ from how the material is processed in practice. This relates to what Article 40 of the ESPR aims to prevent, even if there is no intent involved.

What you can document now

A number of documents and arrangements make it easier to demonstrate where a figure comes from and who is responsible for it:

An overview of each figure in the passport with the corresponding source — test report, calculation, supplier declaration — so that each figure can be traced back to the underlying evidence.
A recorded agreement with suppliers about who supplies and verifies which data, especially in private label or when purchasing semi-finished products that will be further processed.
A procedure for updating the passport if there is a change in process, alloy or origin of the material, including who is responsible for this and when the update takes place.
Documentation of the test and measurement methods used, including the conditions under which the measurements were taken, so that this can be reconstructed if questions arise later.
A file for each supplier change, in which it is recorded which data have been checked and adjusted when switching to a new aluminium supplier.

For companies that are unsure whether they themselves qualify as a manufacturer or rather as an importer or distributor, this distinction is relevant to the question of who takes responsibility for which part of this documentation — see am I an importer or manufacturer according to the ESPR? We compile the passport based on the data provided and host it during the retention period, but the accuracy of the underlying data remains the responsibility of whoever supplies them.

This is not legal advice. This page provides general information on the legislation that this platform covers. We do not know your situation. If in doubt about your own case, consult a lawyer or the competent supervisory authority.

Written with AI based on the sources above, checked by a human on 2026-09-05. Is something incorrect? Let us know — corrections are prioritised.