The European Commission reportedly missed a deadline to provide guidance on how operators of high-risk artificial intelligence systems can meet their obligations under the AI Act, another sign of an ongoing struggle over implementation amid considerations for a delay.
The Commission had until 2 Feb. to produce information about adherence to Article 6, a key part of the EU AI Act dealing with how to determine if an AI application counts as high-risk and therefore whether stricter documentation and compliance requirements apply. That guidance is supposed to include a post-market monitoring plan for providers.
Euractiv reports the Commission indicated it is in the process of integrating months of feedback into the high-risk guidelines and plan to publish a final draft of the guidelines for more feedback by the end of the month. MLex reported in late January that final adoption could come in March or April.
Enforcers have been signaling for months they and businesses are not ready to implement the trickier parts of the act two years after it entered into effect. That argument is a pillar of the Commission's Digital Omnibus package on AI, which would simplify what counts as a high-risk AI use and push back the high-risk entry into force by no more than 16 months.
The delay was foreshadowed during a 26 Jan. European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs hearing, as European Commission Deputy Director-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Renate Nikolay said the guidance is needed to provide legal certainty for businesses and ensure the act works as intended. High-risk compliance requirements are currently due to take effect in August.
"These standards are not ready, and that's why we allowed ourselves in the AI omnibus to give us a bit more time to work on either guidelines or specification or standards, so that we can provide this legal certainty for the sector, for the innovators, so that we have the full system in place," she said.
It is a reversal in tone from the Commission last summer, when representatives promised they would hold firm on the act's timeline as support for a delay grew.
But the process has been dogged by challenges.
Some member state-level authorities have struggled to appoint their enforcers, and delivery of some guidance has come sometimes just weeks before legal deadlines. Two standardization bodies, the European Electrotechnical Committee for Standardization and the European Committee for Standardization, tasked with developing technical for AI, missed a 2025 fall deadline to produce them. They are now aiming for the end of 2026.
Industry calls for a delay have been strong, with stakeholders arguing the AI Act burdens companies and does not give them enough time sort out necessary compliance.
"Considering these rules may apply as soon as August of this year, policymakers should give companies the same breathing room they have afforded themselves and delay enforcing certain 'high-risk' AI Act rules until the right guidance and standards are in place," Chamber of Progress argued.
Those calls have come from U.S. and EU businesses alike. But EU lawmakers have questioned how much Big Tech has influenced the Commission's omnibus proposal, noting it has coincided with months of pressure from the U.S. government to lessen its regulatory regime.
Laura Caroli, an AI Act negotiator and former policy advisor to Parliament co-rapporteur Brando Benifei, said the delay will only create more uncertainty, as it is not a given that the omnibus will pass or stay the same as what is currently proposed. It also undermines confidence in the act itself and creates the impression the Commission has been focused more on the omnibus rather than trying to meet its requirements, she said.
"So now everybody's scrambling to try and understand how long until it will be approved, where the timeline will stand, if the deadlines that are already in place will be met or superseded in time by new ones," she said.
"There was one thing that was fixed from the very beginning, from the very letter of the law," Caroli continued, referring to the guidelines on Article 6. "It's just not there, and it is supposed to give clarity. You're not giving clarity."
Caitlin Andrews is a staff writer for the IAPP.
