A delay in enforcing parts of Europe's landmark artificial intelligence regulation looks more likely after member states and the European Commission's technology leader supported the idea during a recent ministerial meeting. But a division is likely on how far any changes to the rule should go.
Reports of the Commission considering a "stop the clock" proposition for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act came as major implementation deadlines loom at the end of the summer and a key set of guidelines on general practice AI have been delayed. Some countries have yet to establish a lead regulatory body to enforce the regulation, and the EU has been wrestling with how to manage its various interlocking digital laws, with criticism of the regulatory regime coming both from within the EU and the U.S.
Executive Vice-President of the European Commission Henna Virkkunen has been upfront about her desires to simplify the EU's digital laws. She reaffirmed those ideas during a 5 June European Council Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting.
"If we see that the standards and guidelines are not ready in time, we should not rule out postponing some parts of the AI Act in the coming months," she said.
But any possibility of a delay should not be seen as waffling on the implementation itself, Virkkunen added.
"It's very important now to give legal certainty for the industry because this discussion has already created much uncertainty," she said. "And we also see there has been a negative impact on the willingness of companies to engage with the process because there is uncertainty."
It is still unclear what course of action the Commission will ultimately pursue. Prohibitions on certain uses of AI and AI literacy requirements have been in place since February and obligations for general purpose AI model providers are still slated to go into effect this August. In emailed comments to the IAPP, a Commission spokesperson said the goal of the act remains unchanged — but the digital simplification omnibus is still in the works.
"In this simplification context, all options remain open for consideration at this stage," the spokesperson said.
Participants of the 5 June meeting had ranging views on what should be done. Jan Kavalirek, Czechia’s deputy minister of industry and trade, suggested all parts of the regulation not in place should be postponed by two years.
"We remain convinced that meeting the EI AI Act requirements, given the scale and complexity, requires more time, especially for private stakeholders," he said.
Whereas Spain's Minister of Digital Transformation Oscar López Águeda said Spain was supportive of simplification of the AI rules but added that should not be seen as supporting deregulatory efforts, noting the EU has measures such as sandboxes to help businesses get into compliance.
"It's not about stopping any clock, it's about synchronizing our clocks," he said.
The idea has garnered support from the AI industry. The Computer & Communications Industry Association's EU arm told the Commission the August deadline for general AI rules is not enough time, given that a voluntary code of conduct and other guidelines are still missing.
"Additional time is needed to finalise the framework and ensure companies have a reasonable compliance window, in line with established EU rules," the association wrote on 5 June.
Whatever the course of action the Commission takes, any changes to the act would have to go back through the legislative process, said Kai Zenner, the head of staff for German Member of European Parliament Axel Voss. Substantial revisions would likely take longer to hash out than, for instance, changing a word or two around enforcement dates.
Zenner said it was hard to predict what the European Parliament would support and cautioned against taking the words of some vocal members as representations of the whole, and it is hard to get a bead on how the Commission itself feels, he said.
"They are talking with the press and then one EU Commission official is saying one thing, the other is saying another thing. They are talking among each other. They are talking with parliamentarians, with us, and so on and so on," he said. "So, it means that the Commission is heavily divided and that there are indeed different camps in the Commission that are fighting against each other."
Zenner also expressed frustration at the conversation around enforcement, saying his boss and others warned during the trilogue process that the act's deadlines did not give regulators and companies enough time to get into compliance with the technical standards for dynamic technology like AI. He said the regulation might not be perfect, but regulators should work to implement it as best they can and prevent uncertainty as to what they will ultimately do.
"I think the worst that could happen now is if the EU comes across as if — when there's just a little bit of opposition — we basically give up all of our values, all of our plans, and our AI strategy doesn't matter anymore," he said.
The possibility of the Commission pausing enforcement would be unusual but not unheard of, said Eduardo Ustaran, AIGP, CIPP/E, a partner and co-head of Hogan Lovells' privacy and cybersecurity practice. He pointed to the two "Schrems"decisions which changed how international data transfers work as examples of data protection authorities giving businesses some time to adjust.
"It's not like the day after those decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, they were going after companies saying, 'Ah, we caught you. Now you don't have a mechanism to legitimate sector transfers,'" he said. "They said, 'Okay, well, you know what you have to do,' and there was a degree of tolerance to allow organizations find a way to comply."
Ustaran said people should also not treat a potential delay as a catastrophe for the regulation, saying it will take time for regulators to adjust. He said a pause could be helpful for all parties — but cautioned against taking any delay as a sign to relax.
"There is an expectation that companies are still going to be working towards compliance, as opposed to saying, 'Now they're not taking this seriously so that we can ignore it,'" Ustaran said. "That would be unwise, I think."
Caitlin Andrews is a staff writer at IAPP.
