| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣科技大學 === 科技管理所 === 108 === 3D printing not only enables everyone to become a manufacturer but also brings out new business models. Therefore, it brings out concern that, when consumers are damaged by 3D printing products in the future, whether Taiwan’s current Consumer Protection Law can still effectively regulate the 3D printing industry and protect consumers. Since the EU and the United States have already started to discuss 3D printing product liability, this paper adopts the research methods of the literature analysis method and the comparative method to discuss. The research conclusions obtained, first of all, the CAD files used for 3D printing, because the EU and the United States did not include services in product liability, they all face the problem of whether the CAD files are products. However, since Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law includes both mass-produced or customized products and services, both products and services business operators need to bear strict liability. Therefore, there is no need to distinguish whether CAD files are products or services. Secondly, whether 3D printing amateurs are the business operators regulated by Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law. In addition to considering the factors in Taiwan’s practice and doctrine: whether the behavior is repeated, and taking this behavior as a profession. This paper suggests that Taiwan should also consider the factors that the United States court apply: whether the actor is the only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress, and scholar’s suggestions: micro-seller affirmative defense. When 3D printing amateurs apply micro-seller affirmative defense, the court will consider factors such as business scale, organization size, profitability, manufacturing experience, ability to share costs and insurance, social demand for specific products, and the seller's good faith. Ensure that victims receive compensation and protect sellers who are not aware of they are in the business. Thirdly, Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law stipulates business operators engaged in the manufacture of products are liable for strict liability. However, although 3D printing providers manufacture final products, they only have limited control over products’ design and safety, they should not be required to be responsible for strict liability. Therefore, this paper proposes that 3D printing providers should not be deemed as manufacturers and that 3D printing providers should analogy with distributors and only liable for the presumption of negligence. Lastly, in order for victims to track responsible parties, this paper refers to the EU recommendations and believes that it can be solved by adding specific elements to the CAD files or embedding the mark (DNA) in the 3D printing products. In addition, business operators selling CAD files and 3D printing products on the Internet platform must disclose information on the Internet to protect consumer rights in accordance with the administrative ordinances of the e-commerce consumer protection of the Consumer Protection Committee, Executive Yuan.
|
|---|
