Clearing up the confusion around the multiple adoptions of the AI Act

Confusing, much? With all the “AIAct adopted” posts, 2 months after the previous flood of “AI Act adopted” posts, anyone not following closely might think “What, again?”. (+ rinse and repeat in a few weeks during European Parliament phases)

So here’s the explanation: today’s COREPER vote by EU Member States was one of two critical phases in the final sprint towards adoption of the AI Act, and now it will be the European Parliament’s turn to vote on it. If and when the European Parliament approves it too, then we can start saying “AI Act adopted by EU, for realz this time!”.

To everyone sharing the news of today’s COREPER session, dare I suggest not saying “AI Act adopted”, as that unfairly minimises the role of the European Parliament? (While adoption seems very likely, let’s allow the democratic process to play out in full)
Don’t say either “AI Act adopted by EU Member States” without an explanation – although it is technically accurate, it is misleading to anyone unfamiliar with the EU legislative process (and the difference between the Council and the EU itself).

In other words: great news, congratulations to the negotiators (and reporters), and now let’s see what the Parliament has to say.

And hey, let’s not forget about other laws that have a big influence on artificialintelligence solutions, from GDPR to the amendments to the Product Liability Directive, via intellectualproperty law. The AI Act is an important piece, but it is just one piece of the broader picture.

So if you are a company looking to improve your use of AI systems, don’t focus just on the AI Act (in fact, it might not really impact you directly) but be mindful of the broader legislative picture. And instruct your advisors to cover all of those angles, if they do not do so proactively!