European Union
Who is involved in EU AI Act
Records of contact, donations, employment, or public advocacy do not by themselves prove improper influence or wrongdoing.
On the public record
Official recordEuropean Commission (AI Office)
Declared meetingProposer and supervisor of general-purpose AI rules
Commissioners and senior officials publish meetings with organisations on the Transparency Register.
EU Transparency RegisterLarge AI model providers
Registered EU interest representativeGeneral-purpose AI model providers
Major technology companies are listed on the Transparency Register and their declared meetings with Commissioners are published.
EU Transparency RegisterEuropean Digital Rights (EDRi) and civil society coalitions
Consultation submissionDigital rights organisations
Submitted positions during the legislative process and on the Digital Omnibus, opposing deferral of high-risk obligations.
Have your say — European Commission consultationsEuropean standardisation bodies (CEN-CENELEC)
Committee evidenceStandards organisations
Working on the harmonised standards that providers need for conformity assessment; their timing is cited as a reason for the deferral.
AI Act implementation timeline, European CommissionIndustry associations and national business federations
Registered EU interest representativeSector representative bodies
Publicly campaigned for a 'stop the clock' mechanism on high-risk obligations, which the Digital Omnibus delivered.
EU Transparency Register
Arguments on the record
ExplainedPut in favour
- • Sets one set of rules across the single market instead of diverging national AI laws.
- • Bans a defined set of practices considered incompatible with fundamental rights, and adds a new prohibition on AI-generated sexual abuse imagery.
- • Creates transparency duties so people can tell when content or a decision involves AI.
Put against
- • Industry argued the original 2 August 2026 high-risk deadline was unworkable because the harmonised standards needed to demonstrate conformity were not ready.
- • Critics of the Digital Omnibus say deferring high-risk obligations by 16 months weakens protection in exactly the areas of greatest risk.
- • Compliance costs and documentation burdens fall heavily on smaller providers.
Evidence and uncertainty
- • Harmonised standards underpinning conformity assessment are still being finalised, so the practical compliance route is not yet settled.
- • Analysts disagree on whether the deferral is a genuine reprieve: the underlying obligations are unchanged and legacy public-sector high-risk systems must comply by 2 August 2030 regardless.
- • Enforcement capacity varies between member states, and national penalty regimes are not uniform.