Faced with the paradigm of the fourth ‘digital’ industrial revolution, there is particular concern about those AIs integrated in different devices that may pose a danger to society. This legal concern transcends from a European framework following the recent approval by the Council of Europe of the AI Regulation, a fundamental regulation that is outlining the guidelines to be followed in our Member States. Numerous unknowns that an in-depth study of the European regulations will allow us to in-depth knowledge of the guidelines that are being taken with regard to the disruptive operation in some cases of AI. In some cases, the disruptive functioning of AI in our Member States and the possibility of providing legal certainty in an unpredictable field. The purpose of this doctorate is therefore to analyse the European regulatory framework that is regulating AI tools implemented in consumer goods, and specifically to materialise it in a specifically, to materialise it in a possible adaptation of national law in the different different vicissitudes that may arise from the liability of a disruptive use of these tools.

1. Analyse current legislation at national and European level -based on a comparative law study- on AI and possible cases of disruptive behaviour susceptible of offence towards consumers. Of particular interest will be the specific provisions on liability and sanctions.
2. Examine the practical application of the regulations mentioned in O1. It will focus on how these regulations are implemented, based on specific cases of products or services aimed at consumers that have malfunctioned in a way that could give rise to criminal liability.
3. Identify gaps and legal challenges resulting from existing laws or, where appropriate, identified legislative gaps. Special mention should be made of the need to review traditional legal concepts and the incorporation of these new cases into the most basic structures of national criminal law in relation to European regulations. On this basis, the application of European law to the national model of attribution of liability should be considered. Where appropriate, update these concepts in order to provide an efficient response to the new paradigms that the use of AI implies for society.
4. Propose solutions to the gaps and challenges identified in O3, considering legal and practical approaches that can improve existing regulation and ensure greater protection.
5. Consider ethical implications in the regulatory framework analysed and, especially, in the proposals for improvement put forward in O4, to safeguard the fundamental rights of society in the context of AI.
6. Facilitate communication and awareness in society, strengthening the ‘culture of defence’ in the face of the cybernetic and technological advances that AI entails.