{"answer_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:answer:artikel-85-ai-act","canonical_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/artikel-85-ai-act","query":"What obligations does the deployer have under Article 85 of the AI Act?","lang":"en","view":"full","mode":"obligation","question":"What obligations does the deployer have under Article 85 of the AI Act?","situation":"Article 85 of the AI Act covers right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority. Anyone with grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed may lodge a complaint with the relevant market surveillance authority. For an organisation that means your own staff, customers and candidates have a route to the regulator that does not run through you. The duty sits with the deployer. This obligation has applied since 2 August 2026.","likely_role":null,"note":null,"matched_terms":[],"dataset":{"id":"praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph","version":"2.1.0","schema_version":"1.4.0","effective_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z","last_reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","licence":"https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms","canonical_url":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities"},"obligations":[{"slug":"article-85-right-to-complain","label":"Article 85: right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority","summary":"Anyone with grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed may lodge a complaint with the relevant market surveillance authority. For an organisation that means your own staff, customers and candidates have a route to the regulator that does not run through you.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-85-right-to-complain","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Without prejudice to other administrative or judicial remedies, any natural or legal person having grounds to consider that there has been an infringement of the provisions of this Regulation may submit complaints to the relevant market surveillance authority. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, such complaints shall be taken into account for the purpose of conducting market surveillance activities, and shall be handled in line with the dedicated procedures established therefor by the market surveillance authorities.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"The practical meaning of this article lies not in what it instructs you to do but in whom it gives a route. An employee who thinks the scheduling or appraisal system is wrong, a rejected candidate, a customer who feels mishandled: they do not have to convince you first and do not have to show standing. The complaint arrives at the authority, and the first question you then face is about record keeping: which system, which version, which assessment was carried out and when. That is the same record keeping Articles 26 and 72 already require of you, and that is exactly the point. Whoever has that file answers a complaint with documents; whoever does not answers it with a reconstruction after the fact, and a regulator reads that differently. Note too that this right does not depend on harm or on a decision, whereas the right to an explanation in Article 86 does.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Assume a complaint starts at the authority and not with you. Make sure that per AI system you can show which assessment was carried out, by whom, on what date and against which system version, and keep that as a living file rather than a one-off document. Also agree internally who receives a question from an authority and within what period.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}]}],"sources":[{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","title":"EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689","publisher":"European Parliament and Council","canonical_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","source_version":"original-oj-2024-07-12","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"}],"first_actions":[{"label":"Make sure you can answer a complaint with documents","summary":"Record per AI system which assessment was carried out, by whom, on what date and against which system version, and agree who receives a question from the authority and within what period."}],"evidence":[{"label":"Register of requests for an explanation","summary":"Per request: who made it, about which decision, which system and which version contributed to it, what explanation was given and when. This is also the file that shows you did not silently ignore the right.","url":null}],"guidance":[],"examples":[],"standards":[],"definitions":[],"answer_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/artikel-85-ai-act","follow_up_questions":[],"disclaimer":"General interpretation, not legal advice. The official source remains authoritative.","methodology":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/methodologie"}