The main elements of the provisional agreement

Compared to the initial Commission proposal, the main new elements of the provisional agreement can be summarised as follows:


1. Rules on high-impact general-purpose AI models that can cause systemic risk in the future, as well as on high-risk AI systems

2. A revised system of governance with some enforcement powers at EU level

3. Extension of the list of prohibitions but with the possibility to use remote biometric identification by law enforcement authorities in public spaces, subject to safeguards

4. Better protection of rights through the obligation for deployers of high-risk AI systems to conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment prior to putting an AI system into use.


In more concrete terms, the provisional agreement covers the following aspects:


Definitions and scope

To ensure that the definition of an AI system provides sufficiently clear criteria for distinguishing AI from simpler software systems, the compromise agreement aligns the definition with the approach proposed by the OECD.

The provisional agreement also clarifies that the regulation does not apply to areas outside the scope of EU law and should not, in any case, affect member states’ competences in national security or any entity entrusted with tasks in this area. Furthermore, the AI act will not apply to systems which are used exclusively for military or defence purposes. Similarly, the agreement provides that the regulation would not apply to AI systems used for the sole purpose of research and innovation, or for people using AI for non-professional reasons.


Classification of AI systems as high-risk and prohibited AI practices

The compromise agreement provides for a horizontal layer of protection, including a high-risk classification, to ensure that AI systems that are not likely to cause serious fundamental rights violations or other significant risks are not captured. AI systems presenting only limited risk would be subject to very light transparency obligations, for example disclosing that the content was AI-generated so users can make informed decisions on further use.

A wide range of high-risk AI systems would be authorised, but subject to a set of requirements and obligations to gain access to the EU market. These requirements have been clarified and adjusted by the co-legislators in such a way that they are more technically feasible and less burdensome for stakeholders to comply with, for example as regards the quality of data, or in relation to the technical documentation that should be drawn up by SMEs to demonstrate that their high-risk AI systems comply with the requirements.

Since AI systems are developed and distributed through complex value chains, the compromise agreement includes changes clarifying the allocation of responsibilities and roles of the various actors in those chains, in particular providers and users of AI systems. It also clarifies the relationship between responsibilities under the AI Act and responsibilities that already exist under other legislation, such as the relevant EU data protection or sectorial legislation.

For some uses of AI, risk is deemed unacceptable and, therefore, these systems will be banned from the EU. The provisional agreement bans, for example, cognitive behavioural manipulation, the untargeted scrapping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage, emotion recognition in the workplace and educational institutions, social scoring, biometric categorisation to infer sensitive data, such as sexual orientation or religious beliefs, and some cases of predictive policing for individuals.

Law enforcement exceptions

Considering the specificities of law enforcement authorities and the need to preserve their ability to use AI in their vital work, several changes to the Commission proposal were agreed relating to the use of AI systems for law enforcement purposes. Subject to appropriate safeguards, these changes are meant to reflect the need to respect the confidentiality of sensitive operational data in relation to their activities. For example, an emergency procedure was introduced allowing law enforcement agencies to deploy a high-risk AI tool that has not passed the conformity assessment procedure in case of urgency. However, a specific mechanism has been also introduced to ensure that fundamental rights will be sufficiently protected against any potential misuses of AI systems.


Moreover, as regards the use of real-time remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces, the provisional agreement clarifies the objectives where such use is strictly necessary for law enforcement purposes and for which law enforcement authorities should therefore be exceptionally allowed to use such systems. The compromise agreement provides for additional safeguards and limits these exceptions to cases of victims of certain crimes, prevention of genuine, present, or foreseeable threats, such as terrorist attacks, and searches for people suspected of the most serious crimes.

General purpose AI systems and foundation models

New provisions have been added to take into account situations where AI systems can be used for many different purposes (general purpose AI), and where general-purpose AI technology is subsequently integrated into another high-risk system. The provisional agreement also addresses the specific cases of general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems.

Specific rules have been also agreed for foundation models, large systems capable to competently perform a wide range of distinctive tasks, such as generating video, text, images, conversing in lateral language, computing, or generating computer code. The provisional agreement provides that foundation models must comply with specific transparency obligations before they are placed in the market. A stricter regime was introduced for ‘high impact’ foundation models. These are foundation models trained with large amount of data and with advanced complexity, capabilities, and performance well above the average, which can disseminate systemic risks along the value chain.

A new governance architecture

Following the new rules on GPAI models and the obvious need for their enforcement at EU level, an AI Office within the Commission is set up tasked to oversee these most advanced AI models, contribute to fostering standards and testing practices, and enforce the common rules in all member states. A scientific panel of independent experts will advise the AI Office about GPAI models, by contributing to the development of methodologies for evaluating the capabilities of foundation models, advising on the designation and the emergence of high impact foundation models, and monitoring possible material safety risks related to foundation models.

The AI Board, which would comprise member states’ representatives, will remain as a coordination platform and an advisory body to the Commission and will give an important role to Member States on the implementation of the regulation, including the design of codes of practice for foundation models. Finally, an advisory forum for stakeholders, such as industry representatives, SMEs, start-ups, civil society, and academia, will be set up to provide technical expertise to the AI Board.


Penalties

The fines for violations of the AI act were set as a percentage of the offending company’s global annual turnover in the previous

financial year or a predetermined amount, whichever is higher. This would be €35 million or 7% for violations of the banned AI applications, €15 million or 3% for violations of the AI act’s obligations and €7,5 million or 1,5% for the supply of incorrect information. However, the provisional agreement provides for more proportionate caps on administrative fines for SMEs and start-ups in case of infringements of the provisions of the AI act.

The compromise agreement also makes clear that a natural or legal person may make a complaint to the relevant market surveillance authority concerning non-compliance with the AI act and may expect that such a complaint will be handled in line with the dedicated procedures of that authority.

Transparency and protection of fundamental rights

The provisional agreement provides for a fundamental rights impact assessment before a high-risk AI system is put in the market by its deployers. The provisional agreement also provides for increased transparency regarding the use of high-risk AI systems. Notably, some provisions of the Commission proposal have been amended to indicate that certain users of a high-risk AI system that are public entities will also be obliged to register in the EU database for high-risk AI systems. Moreover, newly added provisions put emphasis on an obligation for users of an emotion recognition system to inform natural persons when they are being exposed to such a system.

Measures in support of innovation

With a view to creating a legal framework that is more innovation-friendly and to promoting evidence-based regulatory learning, the provisions concerning measures in support of innovation have been substantially modified compared to the Commission proposal.

Notably, it has been clarified that AI regulatory sandboxes, which are supposed to establish a controlled environment for the development, testing and validation of innovative AI systems, should also allow for testing of innovative AI systems in real world conditions. Furthermore, new provisions have been added allowing testing of AI systems in real world conditions, under specific conditions and safeguards. To alleviate the administrative burden for smaller companies, the provisional agreement includes a list of actions to be undertaken to support such operators and provides for some limited and clearly specified derogations.

Entry into force


The provisional agreement provides that the AI act should apply two years after its entry into force, with some exceptions for specific provisions.

Seamus Larroque

CDPO / CPIM / ISO 27005 Certified

Home

Discover our latest articles

View All Blog Posts
April 29, 2024
Regulation

FTC Completes Updates to Health Breach Notification Rule for Health Apps

The Federal Trade Commission announced it has finalized changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR) that will strengthen and modernize the rule by clarifying its applicability to health apps and other similar technologies and expanding the information that covered entities must provide to consumers when notifying them of a breach of their health data.