who is liable for the product passport in the case of private label products
For private label, the responsibility lies with whoever puts the brand on it, not with whoever makes it
For private label products, the party that places the product on the market under its own name or brand is the one designated as the manufacturer, and is therefore also the party responsible for the digital product passport. The party that actually produced the product — often a factory in the domestic or foreign market that produces for multiple brands simultaneously — is not automatically the liable party under the ESPR. Whoever puts the label on it bears the passport.
For whom this applies, and when the production line stands apart
This applies to any company that has a product made by a third party and then sells it under its own brand name: from supermarket own brands to webshops that have products manufactured and offered under their own branding. The underlying factory — the party doing the actual production — is in principle excluded here, even if that factory knows which brands it supplies. This changes only once the same factory also sells products under its own brand: for that own line, that same party is then itself a manufacturer within the meaning of the ESPR. One company can thus be a trader-without-obligation for one product and a fully responsible manufacturer for another, depending on whose name is on the product. Anyone in doubt about their own position in this chain will find more extensive guidance at who is responsible for the product passport of products and at the question am I an importer or manufacturer according to the ESPR.
This is not about whether the private label party also has to collect all underlying data itself. The actual producer typically has the material data, composition and production information needed to fill in the passport. The ESPR determines who is responsible for the result, not who physically supplies the data — the latter is an agreement that the private label party must make with its producer, not something that the regulation determines for it.
From when this will apply, and what is at stake until then
The general obligations for manufacturers under Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) apply as soon as the corresponding delegated regulation for a product category enters into force; these delegated regulations are adopted per product category separately and do not yet exist for all categories. There is no fixed date that applies to all product categories at the same time — what is certain is that the obligation enters into force per product category separately, with its own timeline set out in the relevant delegated regulation. For a private label company, this means that the question "when do I need to start on this" cannot be answered separately from the question "what product category does my product fall into". Until the delegated regulation for a product category enters into force, the passport requirement for that category does not yet apply, but the qualification question — who in the chain will be considered a manufacturer — does not change as a result.
How a private label company tackles this in practice
As a first step, it is useful to establish under which brand the product is actually sold, and whether that brand consistently belongs to one party or varies by market — in private label it occurs that the same product is sold under brand A in one country and under brand B in another, potentially resulting in different responsible parties. Subsequently, it is worthwhile to make agreements with the actual producer about which technical and material data will be provided, in what format, and how that data remains current as long as the product is on the market — because the responsibility for the accuracy of the passport lies with the brand holder, even if the data comes from a supplier. Anyone who sees an error built in here because the producer provided incorrect information would do well to look at who is liable if the product passport contains incorrect information: liability towards customers and supervisory authorities does not automatically shift back to the manufacturer as a result. After that, it is a matter of determining whether the product is sold through own channels or also through a marketplace — the latter brings a separate layer of obligations with it, explained at what does the digital product passport mean if I sell products via an online marketplace. Anyone not established in the EU but acting as a brand owner must also deal with the question of whether an authorised representative is necessary.
Justification: Article 27 and Article 9 of the ESPR
Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) describes the obligations of manufacturers, including the responsibility for drawing up and keeping the digital product passport up to date. Anyone who places a product on the market under their own name or brand falls under the definition of manufacturer on which these obligations are based, regardless of who actually manufactured the product. Article 9 of the ESPR describes what the digital product passport must contain and confirms that the obligation to provide this passport to the market participant is linked to the one placing the product on the market, not to the physical production location.
If you are operating as a private label business and want to determine where your exact position in this chain lies, it is advisable to first map out your own brand use per market and per product line and to test this against the definitions in Article 27, before agreements with the manufacturer on data provision are finalised.
Where this is based on
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), Article 27 (obligations of manufacturers)
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), article 9 (digital product passport)
The regulation itself is on EUR-Lex. We provide references for each claim; you do not have to take our word for it.
What you must do concretely
What is expected of you
With private label, your company name appears on the packaging or product label, but the product itself is made elsewhere — often by a manufacturer who also supplies that same product under other brands. For the digital product passport, this arrangement makes a material difference, because the ESPR links the obligations not to who physically manufactures the product, but to who places it on the market under their own name.
You are designated as a manufacturer
Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) places manufacturer obligations on the person who has a product manufactured under their own name or brand and places it on the market. If you have a product manufactured by a production company and put your own brand on it, you fall under this definition — even if you have never seen the factory and did not draw up the technical specifications yourself. For a company with 10 to 100 employees, this means that responsibility for the digital product passport, technical documentation and conformity does not automatically remain with the factory, even if that may feel like the case from a day-to-day perspective. If you have any doubt about your own position, you can use the question Am I an importer or manufacturer according to the ESPR? as a starting point.
You are responsible for the content of the passport
Article 9 of the ESPR describes what a digital product passport must contain and that the data in it must be accurate and up to date. As a brand owner in private label, you usually do not yourself determine the material composition, the origin of components or test results — that data comes from the factory. Yet it is your name that is linked to the product, and thus your name that is linked to the passport. Practically speaking, this means that a company selling private label products must make agreements with the factory about which data is supplied and checked by whom, rather than assuming that "the factory will handle that".
You must be able to demonstrate where the data comes from
A digital product passport is not just a collection of data, it is also an account. With private label, this is more pronounced than with products that a company designs and manufactures itself, because the distance between brand name and production knowledge is greater. For a mid-sized company, this means there must be a trail — a contract, a specification sheet, a test report — showing that the data in the passport did not come out of thin air but comes from an identifiable source.
Where things go wrong in practice
A recurring pattern is that the purchase contract with the factory does regulate the price, delivery time and quality requirements, but says nothing about who supplies the data for the product passport. Once the passport has to be created, no one feels responsible for the accuracy of the content.
A second situation: the private label company sells the same base product in a few variants (different colour, different packaging, different accessory), but the factory supplies the same technical data for all variants, while the composition is actually different. No one checks whether the passport is correct per variant.
A third, often underestimated problem: the factory is located outside the EU and supplies data in a format or language that does not match what the passport requires. The private label company processes the data without substantively verifying it, because its own staff do not have the technical background to do so. For those working with a factory outside the EU, background on the division of roles that arises in this context can be found at My manufacturer is located outside the EU — who arranges the digital product passport then?
A fourth situation arises when a private label company itself operates multiple brands for different sales channels (own webshop, marketplace, wholesale) and links a different passport or no passport per channel to the same underlying product. Selling via a marketplace brings with it its own layer of obligations, which can be found at What does the digital product passport mean if I sell products via an online marketplace?
A fifth, less visible problem: if it later emerges that data in the passport was incorrect, there is discussion about who should have flagged it — the factory that supplied the data, or the brand that published it. This question is elaborated at who is liable if the product passport contains incorrect information
What you can document
- A supplier agreement with a specific provision on the product passport: who supplies which data, in which format, and at what time before placing on the market.
- A delivery specification per product group or product variant, so that the factory knows which data per variant are needed and does not use one set of data for all variants.
- A receipt and control moment whereby the supplied data are checked internally before they enter the passport, with a designated name or function that performs this check.
- A file per product with the underlying documents (test reports, material declarations, certificates) that support the data in the passport, so that these documents are available not only at the factory but also at the brand itself.
- An agreement on changes: what happens if the factory adjusts a composition, component or process, and who then ensures that the passport is updated.
- Clarity on the division of roles in case of complaints or questions from supervisory authorities, recorded between brand and factory, so that it does not only become apparent at an incident that no one felt responsible.
For companies that carry both private label and own design or own brand, the distinction between the different roles is sometimes difficult to maintain clearly. The question I sell products under my own brand — what obligations do I incur? provides an additional starting point for this, and the broader question of who in the chain is actually considered the responsible party is described at Who is responsible for the product passport for products?
This is not legal advice. This page provides general information about the regulations that this platform concerns. We do not know your situation. If you are in doubt about your own case, consult a lawyer or the competent supervisory authority.
Written with AI based on the sources above, reviewed by a human on 2026-09-05. Is something incorrect? Let us know — corrections are given priority.