Skip to main content
Praxikon
All answers

Direct answer

What does Article 99, 100 and 101 of the AI Act say about the penalty structure per obligation?

Your question is about Article 99, 100 and 101: the penalty structure per obligation. That obligation applies today. Whether your system actually falls under it depends on conditions you assess yourself.

You determine this yourself

  • Relevant as soon as you are an operator within the meaning of the Regulation, that is a provider, product manufacturer, deployer, authorised representative, importer or distributor, and one of the provisions named in Article 99(3), (4) or (5) is engaged. The Article 101 regime is additionally relevant where you are a provider of a general-purpose AI model, because there the Commission fines you itself. If you fall within the competence of the AI Office under Article 75(1), Article 75c is added on top.
  • Paragraph 6 reverses the calculation for SMEs, including start-ups: for them the lower of the percentage and the amount applies, where for other undertakings it is the higher of the two, and it does so for every fine referred to in Article 99. The inserted paragraph 6a does the same for small mid-cap enterprises, but expressly only for paragraphs 4 and 5, so the Article 5 band is not reversed for them. Paragraph 8 leaves it to each Member State to determine to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State, so the ceiling for a public organisation does not follow from the Regulation. Paragraph 9 allows the fine to be imposed by the competent national courts or by other bodies rather than by the authority in some Member States.

First step: Assign to each obligation the penalty ceiling that belongs to it.

Article 99, 100 and 101 of the AI Act covers the penalty structure per obligation. The Regulation carries no single fine amount. For operators, three ceilings attach to different paragraphs of Article 99; in addition the Commission itself fines providers of general-purpose AI models under Article 101, the AI Office can fine in its own right since the 2026 amendment, and Union institutions and bodies face the separate amounts of Article 100. Which ceiling applies depends on which provision was infringed and on who enforces, and not on how serious the consequences are. This provision concerns the authorised representative, the deployer, the distributor, the provider of a GPAI model, the importer and the provider of an AI system. This provision applies today.

The conclusion and your first steps

This applies now

Your first actions

  1. Assign to each obligation the penalty ceiling that belongs to it. Walk through your obligations register and mark per line which ceiling applies: Article 99(3) for Article 5, Article 99(4) for the role duties enumerated there, Article 25(2) and (4) and Article 50, Article 99(5) for answering information requests, and otherwise the national penalty regime under Article 99(1). Add the Article 101 regime wherever you provide a general-purpose AI model yourself, and the Article 75c regime wherever the AI Office is competent.
Read the official sourceChecked on

General interpretation, not legal advice. Checked against Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and the Digital Omnibus (EU) 2026/1744; the official source remains authoritative.

Full map for your situation

Source and locator

Every statement above rests on these texts. The locator points to the place in the text, the version and the date say which edition was checked.

  • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

    European Parliament and Council, version original-oj-2024-07-12, checked on , ELI http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

    Locators in this source

    • Article 99(1)-(11)
    • Article 113, third paragraph, point (b)
    • Article 101(1)-(6)
    • Article 100(1)-(3)
  • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

    European Parliament and Council, version official-journal-2026-07-24, checked on , ELI http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj

    Locators in this source

    • Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (38)
    • Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (40)
    • Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (32)
    • Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (7)

Dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0, schema 1.5.0.

Execution

Embed this obligation in policy, process and ownership

A legal action only works when it is clear who performs it, where the evidence sits and when it is reviewed. Embed AI translates this obligation into working agreements, controls and ownership per system. The source interpretation above is separate from this commercial referral by Praxikon to an affiliated brand.

See the governance approach
Does this answer your question?
Zahed Ashkara, jurist and freelance AI & Privacy Consultant

Behind this page

Zahed Ashkara

Freelance AI & Privacy Consultant, jurist