The UK is at the start of a major shift in how product safety is regulated and how responsibility is traced when things go wrong. For many years, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 set the boundaries for defective product claims, and that core framework still stands. What is changing — and changing quickly — is the regulatory environment around it: who is responsible for keeping information, what evidence must exist, and which businesses are required to cooperate when a defect leads to loss.
Two developments matter most. Northern Ireland has now implemented the EU General Product Safety Regulation (EU GPSR), which came into force in December 2024 and represents one of the most modern and comprehensive product safety regimes operating in Europe. Great Britain, meanwhile, has passed the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 (PRMA), laying the foundations for a similar approach, particularly in relation to digital, connected and AI-enabled products.
Although different in structure, both frameworks push the UK in the same direction: stronger traceability, a clearer chain of responsibility and much higher expectations regarding evidence. For forensic investigators, insurers and legal specialists, this means fewer blind spots and a far more robust evidential landscape.
A new reality: what the regulations actually bring
The EU GPSR brings online platforms, fulfilment centres and other previously “invisible” intermediaries into the regulatory picture. Marketplaces must verify who is selling goods, keep records, support recalls and ensure consumers know who stands behind the product. Fulfilment providers may even become the “responsible economic operator” when the original manufacturer or importer cannot be identified.
Another major change concerns documentation. Under the GPSR, technical information about a product must be retained for ten years. This includes safety assessments, update histories, and the information needed to confirm where the product originated and how it entered the supply chain. This reduces gaps that frequently hinder investigations such as missing labels, unclear provenance or untraceable importers.
PRMA 2025 takes the UK in the same direction. It is an enabling act rather than a finished regulatory code, but its purpose is clear: future rules will cover software-driven products, AI-related risks, online marketplaces and digital labelling. They will define how information is captured and shared throughout the product’s lifecycle. As these measures come into force, Great Britain will increasingly mirror the traceability and accountability expected under the GPSR.
Why this matters for forensic investigation
Forensic work has always depended on the quality and availability of evidence. In fire scenes or cases involving severe thermal damage, products often lose all identification, making it difficult — sometimes even impossible — to determine who was responsible.
The new regulatory environment changes that dynamic. With online marketplaces and fulfilment services now formally recognised as part of the supply chain, investigators gain access to new forms of information beyond the physical scene: platform data, listing records, warehouse logs and recall histories can all help to identify a product’s origin, even when the object itself is unrecognisable.
This shift is especially significant as products become more digital. Modern failures increasingly involve firmware behaviour, sensor interactions, connectivity issues or battery-management systems. PRMA 2025 explicitly recognises these intangible components, meaning future regulations will require more detailed documentation of software updates, system behaviour and risk assessments. For investigators, this delivers a richer evidence base for establishing causation, whether the failure was mechanical, electrical or digital.
The combination of physical and digital evidence strengthens the reliability of forensic conclusions and reduces the number of cases that conclude with unclear answers.
What it means for recovery and litigation
The legal route for defective product claims in the UK still runs through the Consumer Protection Act, but the practical dynamics around litigation are evolving. The strengthening of documentation requirements, clearer supply-chain responsibilities and the formal inclusion of digital intermediaries mean that claims which previously stalled for lack of evidence are now far more viable.
Where cases once failed because a manufacturer could not be identified or an importer had disappeared from the supply chain, the new regulatory environment significantly reduces that uncertainty. Claimants are more likely to have access to the information needed to establish who placed the product on the market and who bears responsibility for its safety.
This shift has a direct impact on recovery. It broadens the range of parties who may be pursued, clarifies the duties owed within the distribution chain, and strengthens the factual basis on which liability can be argued. As a result, insurers can expect fewer dead ends in subrogated actions and a higher likelihood that responsible parties will be found.
The divergence between Northern Ireland’s EU-aligned system and Great Britain’s emerging PRMA-based regime also creates strategic opportunities. Products entering the UK through NI already carry stricter traceability obligations, which can support disclosure requests or case-building in disputes arising elsewhere in the UK. As these frameworks continue to evolve, legal teams will increasingly use regulatory obligations as part of the recovery strategy.
EFI Global and Sedgwick Legal Services: coordinating technical and legal expertise
As traceability improves and evidence becomes richer, the link between technical investigation and legal analysis becomes even more important. EFI Global’s forensic work identifies how a product failed and where responsibility may lie, while Sedgwick Legal Services (SLS) builds on those findings to assess liability, shape recovery strategies and guide next steps.
Working together early in a case helps ensure that technical issues are understood correctly, that important evidence is preserved and that legal arguments reflect what the technical findings actually show. This coordinated approach gives insurers clearer insight and supports a smoother progression from investigation to recovery.
Case study: how this works in practice
One recent case illustrates how this works in practice. Following a residential house fire, EFI Global’s forensic investigation traced the origin to a domestic heating appliance. The investigator identified an electrical defect in the product’s control assembly, consistent with an emerging safety issue. Supply-chain checks confirmed the manufacturer and brand owner, but only limited recall information was available, making the evidential picture less clear-cut than in typical cases.
With the insurer’s consent, EFI Global’s expert worked closely with Sedgwick Legal Services to clarify technical findings, address evidential gaps and build a strong, legally defensible case. This collaboration enabled SLS to advance a claim under the Consumer Protection Act against both entities and ultimately secure a successful recovery.
This example shows how improved data access, stronger traceability and coordinated technical-legal work can lead to positive outcomes, even when the available evidence is incomplete or still developing.
Looking ahead
Product safety regulation in the UK is moving toward a model driven by data, digital components and traceability across increasingly complex supply chains. The EU GPSR represents this shift in full, while the PRMA 2025 will gradually bring Great Britain into alignment.
For investigators, insurers and legal professionals, this evolving framework means better evidence, clearer accountability and potentially higher rates of successful recovery. Organisations that adapt early — particularly in navigating digital evidence, software-related risks and new supply-chain responsibilities — will be well positioned to manage claims and support fair outcomes.
EFI Global and Sedgwick Legal Services continue to work together to help clients prepare for this new environment, combining forensic insight with legal strategy in a landscape where evidence is no longer limited to what is found on the ground but extends across the entire digital and physical lifecycle of a product.
For further information, please contact Tim James, [email protected]