Consistent with the recent strategic shift in policy around EU regulations, the EU’s seventh package of changes to simplify/lighten their burden has just been approved and, with it, we will see changes to the way the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act will be applied (although some obligations under this legislation are already in force).

The EU’s Council of Ministers and Parliament have agreed to changes and, consistently with the overall themes of previous Omnibus packages, there is an emphasis on slowing things down, reducing burdens for smaller sized companies and seeking to avoid the application of a double regulatory burden where legal obligations under other EU rules are already in place. This is similar to what the EU has done under previous packages with ESG rules under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, Corporate Due Diligence Directive and the EU Deforestation Regulation (amongst other examples). The changes should be adopted imminently given that the deadlines they are seeking to delay otherwise start to apply in August.

Recall that the approach to (high risk) AI products incorporates the tried and tested conformity assessment and CE marking system that we see with so many consumer products on the EU market. AI products, for all their world-changing promise and potential, are in effect treated no differently in this respect from your average widget that requires to have a CE mark. Thus, where the Omnibus VII package slows down the application of the law and clarifies the various overlaps with specific sectoral laws that already ensure safety (such as the Machinery Regulation), companies developing their products for the AI world, using AI as a safety component for products, or those venturing into the manufacture of products incorporating AI for the first time can be reassured that they are treading a well-worn path, albeit with slightly different considerations (noting that what is ‘high-risk’ in terms of AI does not only depend on the product-regime, but also the particularities of the AI system itself and its intended use). Lawyers are there to interpret the laws (e.g. does your AI system fall within a high-risk category? Is it borderline? What are the arguments that will work that will keep you away from additional regulatory burdens? What are the minimum legal requirements for AI?) and explain the legal value of standards and guidance documents as opposed to specific implementing regulations while, just as importantly, if not more, those same lawyers know how and when to liaise with technical consultants, your in-house experts, technical bodies, etc., as appropriate, to compile the necessary technical documentation and establish the appropriate inhouse systems. In that regard, it will help if your legal team includes lawyers who know their way around CE marking/conformity assessment rules because they do it on a daily basis by reference to the Radio Equipment Directive, or Batteries Regulation or RoHS Directive, for example as much as they are experts in data privacy and digital assets law.

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this article is accurate, neither its authors nor Squire Patton Boggs accepts responsibility for any errors or omissions. The content of this article is for general information only, and is not intended to constitute or be relied upon as legal advice.