Dismantling the EU AI Act
Contrary to what EU officials are saying, several of the proposed amendments weaken AI regulation in the EU and go against the protection of fundamental rights | Edition #249
👋 Hi everyone, Luiza Jarovsky, PhD, here. Welcome to our 249th edition, trusted by more than 85,300 subscribers worldwide.
🔥 Paid subscribers have full access to all my essays and curations here.
🎓 This is how I can support your learning and upskilling journey in AI:
Join my AI Governance Training [apply for a discounted seat here]
Strengthen your team’s AI expertise with a group subscription
Receive our job alerts for open roles in AI governance and privacy
Sign up for our Learning Center's weekly educational resources
Discover your next read in AI and beyond in our AI Book Club
👉 A special thanks to AIUC Global, this edition’s sponsor:
Effective AI Governance starts with personal intention, not centralized oversight. Start using nuanced language recognizing human contribution and empower your teams to openly discuss risks, innovation opportunities, and AI tool choices, sharing knowledge and building accountability from the start. Adopt the new AI Usage Classifications Framework today!
*To support us and reach over 85,300 subscribers, become a sponsor.
Dismantling the EU AI Act
Since the beginning of the year, I have been writing about the EU's narrative shift, driven by the publication of the Draghi report on European competitiveness and by growing external pressure, especially from Washington.
The AI Action Summit in February made this new narrative loud and clear to the public, as EU officials abandoned fundamental rights-focused statements and announced they would “remove the red tape,” simplify, and apply the EU AI Act “in a business-friendly way.”
As I wrote in February, from a legal perspective, it is unclear to me what applying a law “in a business-friendly way” means, especially when one of its main goals is to restrict and shape corporate behavior in an ethical and socially beneficial way. Giving in to profit-oriented desires goes against the regulatory purpose, especially in a field like AI, where risks can be systemic.
A few months ago, we heard the first rumors of GDPR and EU AI Act amendments aimed at simplifying compliance (and, let us be clear, to immediately please the Trump Administration and avoid tariffs as well), which were supposed to be decided at the end of 2025.
Last week, the draft of the proposed amendments to the AI Act, the GDPR, and other EU laws was leaked.
On AI regulation, the EU seems to have given in to external pressure and decided to weaken its fundamental rights-based legal framework.
The leaked document is a draft and, supposedly, could change until November 19, the scheduled day for the official publication of the ‘Digital Omnibus,’ when the EU will announce the planned amendments to some of its tech laws. However, being realistic, there are only eight days left. There is not enough time for meaningful changes.
Contrary to what EU officials have been saying since the document was leaked, several of the proposed amendments to the AI Act, especially when read together with the proposed GDPR amendments, will weaken AI regulation in the EU, which was already below what would be expected from a comprehensive legal framework focused on the protection of fundamental rights.
I want to start by highlighting two paragraphs of the draft that serve both as context and justification for the proposed amendments:
“These consultations revealed implementation challenges that could jeopardize the effective entry into application of key provisions. These include the slow designation of national competent authorities and conformity assessment bodies, as well as a lack of harmonised standards for the AI Act’s high-risk requirements, guidance, and compliance tools. Such delays risk increasing costs for businesses and slowing innovation.
To address these challenges, the Commission is proposing targeted simplification measures aimed at ensuring timely, smooth, and proportionate implementation.”
So, strangely, the justification for the proposed amendments to the EU AI Act is designation delays by the EU member states and work delays by the EU standardization organizations.
If these were really the reasons, would it not be more coherent to pressure them to hurry up, hire more people, increase the budget, or help solve the bureaucratic obstacles? Does the EU need to amend some of the AI Act’s core obligations because EU bodies are delayed? It does not make sense.
Let’s look at some of the proposed amendments and how they would weaken AI regulation and undermine the protection of fundamental rights: