In a product liability action, a product or product component shall be presumed to be reasonably safe if the aspect of the product or product component that allegedly caused the harm was specified or required, or if the aspect is specifically exempted for particular applications or users, by a federal or State statute or regulation promulgated by an agency of the federal or State government responsible for the safety or use of the product before the product was distributed into the stream of commerce.
2-2103.Federal and State standards; presumption.
Article II. Civil Practice · Part 21. Product Liability · Last amended 1995 · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceSection 2-2103 creates a presumption that a product is reasonably safe when the feature that allegedly caused harm was required, specified, or expressly exempted by a federal or state safety regulation in effect before the product entered commerce.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/2-2103
Plain-English Summary
Section 2-2103 ties a presumption of reasonable safety to regulatory compliance. If the aspect of a product or product component that allegedly caused the harm was specified or required — or was specifically exempted for particular applications or users — by a federal or state statute or regulation from an agency responsible for the product's safety or use, and that statute or regulation was in place before the product was distributed into commerce, the product or component is presumed reasonably safe.
The presumption attaches to compliance with (or an express exemption under) a governing regulatory standard for the specific feature at issue, not to the product as a whole in every respect. The section states the presumption itself but doesn't spell out how it can be overcome, unlike some of the other sections in this Part that build in their own rebuttal standard.
In practical effect, a defendant who shows the relevant regulatory standard was met, or that the feature was expressly exempted from regulation, starts the case with that presumption in its favor on the safety of that feature, rather than needing to prove safety from scratch.
Frequently Asked Questions
What triggers the presumption of reasonable safety under this section?
Showing that the aspect of the product allegedly causing harm was specified or required by a federal or state statute or regulation from an agency responsible for the product's safety or use, or was specifically exempted from that regulation for the relevant application or user.
Does compliance with a federal regulation guarantee a manufacturer wins a product liability case?
The section creates a presumption of reasonable safety for the feature involved, not an absolute defense. It doesn't state how the presumption can be rebutted.
What kind of regulation qualifies to trigger this presumption?
A federal or state statute or a regulation promulgated by an agency of the federal or state government responsible for the safety or use of the product.
When must the regulation have been in place relative to the product's distribution?
Before the product was distributed into the stream of commerce. The presumption looks at the regulatory landscape as it existed at that point in time.
Is this presumption the same as the alternative-design presumption in the next section?
No. Section 2-2103's presumption is keyed to regulatory compliance or exemption. Section 2-2104 creates a separate presumption tied to whether a practical, feasible alternative design existed.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 89-7, eff. 3-9-95.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: federal regulation compliance defense illinois product liabilitypresumption of safety illinois product liabilityregulatory compliance product defect illinois