EU mulls watering down AI Act enforcement under Big Tech and US pressure
The European Commission is weighing adjustments to the AI Act under a broader “simplification agenda,” following industry feedback and diplomatic engagement. A draft seen by the Financial Times reportedly outlines a one‑year grace period for firms already deploying high‑risk AI systems, intended to allow operational changes without market disruption. The Commission maintains it fully supports the AI Act’s objectives, while considering targeted implementation delays. No formal decision has been taken, and discussions continue internally and with member states.
The AI Act, adopted in 2024, prohibits social scoring and real‑time facial recognition and sets stringent obligations for high‑risk uses in healthcare, policing, and employment. Its extraterritorial scope reaches any provider offering AI products or services to EU users, backed by robust transparency duties and significant administrative fines. The proposed grace period would temporarily defer enforcement against already‑deployed high‑risk systems, aiming to balance compliance readiness with continuity for existing deployments.
In parallel, the Commission is reportedly assessing a postponement of penalty start dates tied to transparency infringements until August 2027, granting companies additional time to meet documentation and disclosure requirements. These ideas form part of an effort to streamline regulatory burdens while preserving core safeguards. If adopted by the Commission on November 19, the measures would still require approval by a majority of member states and the European Parliament.
Industry stakeholders argue the Act’s complexity and broad high‑risk definitions could deter experimentation and burden smaller developers. The U.S. administration has signaled concerns about excessive regulation, favoring a lighter‑touch approach while states like California move ahead with stricter rules. The Commission’s calibrated delay proposals seek to address implementation challenges without retreating from the Act’s protective framework.
