Direct answer

When are you a deployer under the AI Act?

8 obligations under the AI Act bear on this, of which 7 apply today.

First step: Assess for every design change whether it is significant.

Whether you are a deployer is not a matter of what you call yourself but of what you do with the system. Across the 8 obligations there are 23 conditions and exceptions that decide it. Below they are listed per provision, with the official source. Likely role: deployer.

The conclusion and your first steps

Preliminary reading · Article 111(2): legacy high-risk systems and the 2 August 2030 date

The text above is the consolidated text and has been checked against the Official Journal; what is preliminary is our reading of it. First, the cut off date. The amended paragraph 2 refers not to a date but to the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, and since the Digital Omnibus Article 113, third paragraph, point (c) gives two: 2 December 2027 for Annex III and 2 August 2028 for Annex I. We therefore read the cut off as route dependent. A defensible alternative reading is that the reference points at the general application date of Chapter III as a whole, that is 2 August 2026, because Sections 4 and 5 of that Chapter were not deferred; on that reading the cut off would effectively still be 2 August 2026. We follow the route dependent reading because point (c) expressly names Sections 1, 2 and 3, and those are the Sections carrying the requirements the grace period exists for. Second, the notion of a significant change in the design. That is not the same wording as the defined substantial modification used elsewhere in the Regulation, and there is no guidance or case law saying whether a model update, a retraining run or a new data source counts. We read it as a change that touches the intended purpose, the functioning or the risk profile, and not as every release. Third, the reach of intended to be used by public authorities. It is unclear whether a system supplied to both public and private customers falls under it in full, and whether a private party carrying out a public task is a public authority. We read the intention as following from the market the system is offered for and not from the legal form of the individual customer.

The text of the provision is settled. How it plays out has not been decided in case law or guidance, so this is our reasoned reading and not established law. Weigh it yourself, or put it to your own lawyer.

Preliminary reading · Article 4a: legal basis for bias testing with special categories of personal data

Two things are open here, and the risk runs the other way round than with a right such as Article 86: a broad reading here benefits the controller and not the data subject, because this concerns data on ethnicity, health, religion, trade union membership and sexual orientation. Where in doubt the narrow reading is therefore the safe one. First, the reach of "other AI systems and models" in paragraph 2, which on its face covers any AI system and any model and for which no delimitation exists. We read it on its face, but with the threshold in paragraph 2, point (a), as the real boundary: without a consequence for health and safety, fundamental rights or prohibited discrimination there is no basis. A defensible alternative reading is that paragraph 2 is confined to systems comparable to the examples in recital 9, such as scoring tools for permits and public services. Second, the relationship with Article 9 GDPR. Recital 9 states that the extension is subject to the same limitations, conditions and safeguards and thereby ensures compliance with Article 9(2), point (g), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, so we read Article 4a as the Union law measure that point requires, with the safeguards carried by the six conditions themselves. The counterargument stands against that and has not gone away, but it has narrowed since 27 July 2026: the anchoring sits in a recital and not in the article, and the article itself designates no ground from Article 9(2). What no longer supports that counterargument is Article 2(7). Until 27 July 2026 that paragraph left the GDPR unaffected without reservation, but it was replaced by Article 1, point 2(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: "Union law on the protection of personal data, privacy and the confidentiality of communications applies to personal data processed in connection with the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation. Without prejudice to Articles 4a and 59 of this Regulation, this Regulation shall not affect Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or (EU) 2018/1725, or Directive 2002/58/EC or (EU) 2016/680." The Union legislature therefore carved the reservation out for Article 4a precisely, which points towards reading Article 4a as the Union law measure itself rather than a mere cross-reference to the GDPR. Anyone citing this object while quoting the former wording of Article 2(7) is quoting a replaced provision. A defensible alternative reading remains that a national or Union measure with specific safeguards is still needed alongside it, but it now rests only on the absence of an express designation in the article itself. On the date from which the basis operates, part is settled and part is not. What is settled is what recital 9 says, namely that the basis should apply from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; that has been read and is not a house reading. What remains open is which date this object therefore carries. We hold to 27 July 2026, the day Article 4a entered the text, because a basis that was not yet there was in fact not available. The alternative reading follows recital 9 literally and lets the basis reach back to the date of application of the base Regulation. That difference is not academic for anyone who has to justify processing from that period. The editorial statement below marks that choice as our inference.

Preliminary reading · Article 85: right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority

The right itself is settled; what it asks of you is not. Article 85 addresses the market surveillance authority and imposes no literal duty on the organisation complained about: there is no deadline, no duty to inform and no requirement to set up an internal complaints channel. We nonetheless read a practical consequence into it, namely that you must be able to rebut a complaint with recorded evidence at the moment the authority asks, and that is not the same as a duty following from the text. A defensible alternative reading is that this article is purely procedural for you and that your preparation is governed entirely by Article 26 and Article 72. It is also unclear how this right to complain relates to the right to complain under the GDPR where the same conduct engages both.

Preliminary reading · Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision

One thing is unsettled here: how deep the explanation has to go. The Regulation asks for clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the system and the main elements of the decision taken, but there is no case law and no guidance saying whether a description of the factors used is enough or whether it concerns the weighting in the individual case. We read it as the latter, because the text speaks of the decision taken rather than of the system in general. The date question is no longer open: decision D1 of 6 September 2026 chooses the text reading, so Article 86 applies from 2 August 2026 to systems already in use at that point. The practical reading, that the right only acquires an object once the Annex III regime operates on 2 December 2027, is not written away but sits as an annotation in high_risk_regime_from.

Applies when: The transitional rule is without prejudice to the application of Article 5, as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a). A prohibited practice remains prohibited, regardless of when the system was placed on the market or put into service and regardless of whether the design has changed.
Applies when: The transitional rule concerns the high-risk requirements of Chapter III and is not an exemption from the whole Regulation. Article 4 has applied since 2 February 2025 irrespective of when a system reached the market, and Article 50 has applied to all systems in scope since 2 August 2026. The paragraph 4 added by the Digital Omnibus confirms this: it gives legacy generative systems a short extra period for Article 50(2), which would make no sense if Article 50 did not reach them.
Applies when: Applies to operators of high-risk AI systems placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X. That date is 2 December 2027 for systems that are high-risk under Article 6(2) and Annex III, and 2 August 2028 for systems that are high-risk under Article 6(1) and Annex I. For that group the high-risk requirements bite only once the systems are subject to significant changes in their designs as from that date.
Applies when: The grace period runs per type and model, not per unit. If at least one individual unit of the type and model was lawfully placed on the market or put into service before the cut off date, other units of the same type and model are covered too and may be offered without additional obligations, requirements or additional certification, as long as the design remains unchanged. The decisive date is the one on which the first unit of that type and model was placed on the market or put into service in the Union.
Applies when: Applies independently to providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems intended to be used by public authorities. They must in any case take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements and obligations of the Regulation by 2 August 2030, even where the design remains unchanged.

Unless: Systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems established by the legal acts listed in Annex X fall not under paragraph 2 but under paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 was not amended by the Digital Omnibus and keeps its own cut off: placed on the market or put into service before 2 August 2027, with compliance by 31 December 2030.

Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems

Applies when: Applies as soon as you use a high-risk AI system under your own authority (Article 3(4)), whether you built it yourself or procured it. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027; for the embedded Annex I route (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.

Unless: Article 2(10) excludes natural persons using an AI system in the course of a purely personal, non-professional activity. For deployers that are financial institutions subject to internal governance requirements under Union financial services law, the monitoring obligation in paragraph 5 is deemed fulfilled by complying with those rules, and the logs under paragraph 6 are maintained as part of the documentation kept under that law.

Article 4: AI literacy

Applies when: The organisation is a provider or deployer of an AI system within scope.

Unless: The provision does not require a specific individual level to be guaranteed.

Article 4a: legal basis for bias testing with special categories of personal data

Applies when: Paragraph 1 is open only to the provider of a high-risk AI system, and only to the extent that the processing is strictly necessary to detect and correct bias in accordance with Article 10(2), points (f) and (g). The deployer cannot rely on this paragraph, not even for a high-risk system; for the deployer the route runs through paragraph 2.
Applies when: Paragraph 2 is open to providers and deployers of other AI systems and models and to deployers of high-risk AI systems, but carries its own substantive threshold: the processing must be strictly necessary in view of possible biases that are likely to affect the health and safety of persons, have a negative impact on fundamental rights or lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, especially where data outputs influence inputs for future operations. Bias without one of those consequences falls outside it.
Applies when: The six conditions in paragraph 1 are cumulative and, through paragraph 2, point (b), apply to the wider circle as well: (a) other data, including synthetic or anonymised data, demonstrably do not suffice; (b) technical limitations on re-use apply plus state of the art security and privacy preserving measures, including pseudonymisation; (c) there is strict access control with documentation and confidentiality; (d) the data are not transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties; (e) they are deleted once the bias has been corrected or the retention period ends, whichever comes first; (f) the record of processing activities states why the processing was strictly necessary and why the objective could not be achieved with other data.

Unless: Paragraph 2 closes by providing that it creates no obligation to carry out bias detection and correction. Article 4a is therefore a basis and not an instruction: without carrying out such processing there is nothing to comply with under this article, there is no date by which anything must be done, and outside the purpose of bias detection and correction it grants no room at all.

Article 5: prohibited practices

Applies when: Placing on the market, putting into service or using AI falls under one of the practices in Article 5(1), including harmful manipulation or exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, predicting criminal offences based on profiling, untargeted scraping of facial images, emotion recognition in the workplace or education, biometric categorisation by sensitive characteristics and real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement.

Unless: The exceptions are narrow: among others, emotion recognition for medical or safety reasons, and the exhaustively defined law-enforcement situations with authorisation for real-time remote biometric identification in Article 5(2) to (7). The exception must be established and documented in advance.

Article 50: transparency

Applies when: An AI system is intended to interact directly with natural persons.
Applies when: The system generates or manipulates synthetic audio, image, video or text, or the use concerns a specifically listed deployer scenario.

Unless: The direct-interaction disclosure is not required where this is obvious to a reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect person, considering circumstances and context.
Unless: Only Article 50(2) has a transition until 2 December 2026 for systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026.

Article 85: right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority

Applies when: Applies as soon as anyone has grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed. There is no standing threshold: the right belongs to any person, and the complaint goes to the market surveillance authority of the Member State concerned.

Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision

Applies when: Applies where a deployer takes a decision about a natural person on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of point 2 of that Annex, and that decision produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights.

Unless: Paragraph 2 excludes the right for AI systems where exceptions from, or restrictions to, that obligation follow from Union or national law in compliance with Union law. Paragraph 3 further limits the right to cases where it is not otherwise provided for under Union law, which makes the boundary with Article 22 GDPR a case-by-case question.

These are the questions you answer yourself. Praxikon shows which condition sits in which provision; whether your system meets it is yours to establish.

AI articles on EU policy without substantive review
A website automatically publishes AI-generated articles about European policy. There is an editorial charter on paper, but nobody reviews the substance. Before publication only a spell check runs, and a second AI model reviews the text.
Provenance: The final Commission guidelines on Article 50 treat this case as a worked example under the transparency obligations. The document is non-binding.
An editorial charter on paper, a spell check and a second AI model do not count as human review, so without substantive fact checking by a person you must label the publication.
Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, 20.7.2026, worked examples under Article 50
AI summary of a council decision under editorial control
A news site places an AI-generated summary beneath a journalist's article about a recent town council decision. The editor in chief reads the summary on substance, checks the facts and signs off for publication.
Provenance: The final Commission guidelines on Article 50 treat this case as a worked example under the transparency obligations. The document is non-binding.
Do not rely on the editorial exception without substantive review by a competent person and a publicly identifiable holder of editorial responsibility, and note that any AI intervention after sign-off voids it.
Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, 20.7.2026, worked examples under Article 50
AI toy rewards children for dangerous challenges
A manufacturer markets an AI-powered toy that keeps children engaged by encouraging increasingly risky challenges, such as climbing furniture, exploring high shelves or handling sharp objects, in exchange for digital rewards and virtual praise.
Provenance: The Commission guidelines on prohibited AI practices treat this case as a worked example under Article 5. The document is non-binding: authoritative interpretation rests with the Court of Justice.
If children are among your users, assess every engagement and reward mechanism separately, because what counts as acceptable stimulation for adults can already be exploitation of children's curiosity and desire for rewards.
Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5052 final, 29.7.2025, worked examples under Article 5
biometrics and identification
Facial recognition at access control: the guard behind the camera counts too
An organisation secures the entrances to its buildings with facial recognition and uses that biometric access control to register visitors as well. When the system returns no match, a security officer reviews the camera images and decides personally whether someone may enter. The question is whose measures have to reach that officer: those of the supplier of the model, those of the department that deploys the system, or both.
Provenance: Article 4(1) provides that providers and deployers of AI systems shall take measures to support the development of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. In doing so they must take into account technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, and consider the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used. The same provision states that this obligation does not require providers or deployers to guarantee any specific level of AI literacy of any individual.
We read the phrase about the persons on whom the system is used as the centre of gravity for biometrics: whoever stands in front of the camera is subject to the outcome and has little to set against it. That argues for equipping the officer who decides for himself when no match comes back more substantively than the colleague who merely switches the system on and off. The article itself names no sufficient level and expressly states that you need not guarantee one, so where the floor lies for each role stays open. In our assessment a record kept per role, stating the choice made and the reason for it, is easier to defend than one organisation-wide session backed only by an attendance list.
Editorial example. The rule above is in the Regulation. The situation was written by us to show how that rule plays out in this sector, and is not taken from a worked case in official guidance.
Article 4(1)

No mandatory course format, no certificate, no exam and no AI officer
The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that there is no one size fits all when it comes to AI literacy and that no strict requirements or mandatory trainings are imposed. On certification, the Q&A states literally that there is no need for a certificate and that organisations can keep an internal record of trainings or other guiding initiatives. On assessment, it states that Article 4 of the AI Act does not entail an obligation to measure the AI knowledge of employees. On governance, it states that no specific governance structure is mandated to comply with Article 4, so that unlike the data protection officer under the GDPR, no AI officer needs to be appointed. On the level, the Q&A states that following the Digital Omnibus amendment AI literacy remains an obligation for providers and deployers of AI systems, but that no specific or sufficient level is mandated and that the Regulation does not require guaranteeing any specific level of AI literacy of any individual. Against that, the Q&A states that simply relying on the AI systems' instructions for use or asking staff to read them might be ineffective, and that organisations should take into account general AI understanding within the organisation, whether they are a provider or a deployer, the risks associated with the systems deployed, staff knowledge gaps considering technical knowledge, experience, education and training, and contextual factors such as sector, purpose and affected populations. The Q&A further states that organisations may implement different levels of training or learning approaches depending on knowledge, experience, education and role, and that staff with a degree or experience in AI development are normally considered AI literate, while the organisation must still verify that those persons understand the specific AI systems of the organisation, know how to deal with them and are aware of all risks.
Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on required level, training formats, certificates, assessment of knowledge and governance structures (consulted 9 August 2026)
Article 4 reaches beyond your own staff, and the national supervisor enforces it
The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that Article 4 applies to providers and deployers of AI systems and in addition to other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, covering persons broadly within the organisational remit, with a contractor, a service provider and a client given as examples. On clients, the Q&A states that they may need AI literacy depending on the specific risk, reasoning that affected persons should understand how decisions taken with the assistance of AI will have an impact on them. On geographic scope, the Q&A states that the AI Act's legal framework applies to both public and private actors inside and outside the EU as long as the AI system is placed on the Union market, used in the Union, or its use has an impact on people located in the EU. On supervision, the Q&A states that the supervision and enforcement of Article 4 is not with the AI Office but under the remit of national market surveillance authorities, and that supervision and enforcement began on 2 August 2026, while Article 4 itself entered into application on 2 February 2025. On sanctions, the Q&A states that national market surveillance authorities could impose penalties and other enforcement measures for infringements of Article 4, that this will be based on national laws that Member States were due to adopt by 2 August 2025, that any sanction must be proportionate and based on the individual case taking into account factors such as the nature and gravity of the infringement and its intentional or negligent character, and that sanctions are more likely if there is proof of an incident due to a lack of appropriate training and guidance. Article 4 is not listed in the enumeration in Article 99(4) of the AI Act, which covers only Articles 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33(1), (3) and (4), 34 and 50, so the level of any penalty for Article 4 follows from national law rather than from the Regulation's own ceilings. The Q&A further states that Article 4 reinforces the transparency provisions of Article 13 and the human oversight provisions of Article 14 and indirectly contributes to the protection of affected persons, and that for deployers of high-risk systems the Article 26 obligation to ensure staff are trained to ensure human oversight is a distinct requirement; that requirement becomes applicable on 2 December 2027 for standalone Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems.
Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on target groups, geographic scope, supervision and enforcement, and sanctions (consulted 9 August 2026)
AI agents must disclose both their AI nature and on whose behalf they act
Point (31) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 states that AI agents are covered by Article 50(1) if they are capable of interacting with the persons instructing them or with other natural persons in the execution of their tasks, citing as examples making bookings, managing correspondence, negotiating or concluding contracts and executing purchases. That same point requires AI agents to be designed and developed so that they disclose both their artificial nature and the person on whose behalf they are acting, given the need for transparency of the origin and of the delegation of authority and accountability for the consequences of their actions. This also applies in complex multi-agent architectures in which other agents interact directly with natural persons. Where the provider cannot reliably determine before placing on the market or putting into service whether the agent will directly interact with a natural person, the agent should be designed at the architecture level and instructed to disclose itself in every situation where it is reasonably likely to interact with a natural person, including where that person represents a legal entity. Agents should also disclose themselves to the persons instructing them at key steps such as authorisation, reporting and validation, including where the agent receives, processes or relies upon outputs generated by other AI systems rather than by a natural person, and at every new interaction. Point (63) adds that Article 50(2) may apply to AI agents where the agent takes an action whose output is AI-generated or manipulated content perceptible by natural persons, while intermediate processing steps such as reasoning and chain of thought and non-perceptible actions such as a web request or browser action fall outside that scope.
Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 3.1.1 point (31) and Section 4.1.2 point (63)
Artistic or satirical work is not exempt but attenuated, and the informative character always prevails
Point (119) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 describes an attenuated transparency obligation for deep fakes forming part of evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works or programmes, where the obligation is limited to disclosure in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work. Point (120) describes the categories: artistic works are created for the purpose of art, including music, cinematographic works and visual arts; creative works involve creative choices, while works mainly motivated by functional or technical considerations cannot be regarded as creative; satirical works are intended to criticise society, politics, business or public figures through humoristic techniques; fictional works involve persons, objects, places, entities or events in an imaginary but verisimilitude setting; analogous works share core traits with those categories without fitting neatly into one. Point (122) states that it must be evident to the natural persons exposed to it that the content falls within one of those categories, that the categories must therefore be interpreted strictly given the lighter disclosure regime and the interests of freedom of expression and freedom of the arts and sciences, and that content whose nature is potentially unclear or ambiguous to the audience falls outside this lighter regime. Relevant factors, per that same point, are whether the content displays formats or styles characteristic of the category, the context in which it is presented, and audience expectations. That same point excludes content whose nature is exclusively informative or commercial and recognisable as such, citing news reporting, notes that advertisements or documentaries may be regarded as evidently creative or fictional in certain specific situations but not in others because the assessment is case-specific, and states that where the deep fake combines multiple characters, for example informative and creative, the informative character should always prevail and the standard labelling requirements apply. Point (123) stresses that these deep fakes are not excluded from the obligation: the deployer must still disclose the AI origin or manipulation, but may do so in an appropriate manner, and must in any case comply with Article 50(5). Point (124) states that reliance on the attenuated obligation cannot justify failing to respect the fundamental rights of individuals or the rights of rightsholders under Union intellectual property or data protection law. As examples within the categories the document cites movies featuring AI de-aged existing actors or digital replicas of deceased actors, AI-generated music in the style of existing artists, and an AI-manipulated image of an existing politician in a scene clearly meant as humorous criticism. Outside the categories the document places among others an AI-manipulated video in the style of a teleshopping channel, AI-generated images of celebrities implying involvement in activities that never happened, and an AI-manipulated video featuring a realistic synthetic influencer focused solely on displaying a sponsored product's functionalities.
Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.1.3, points (119) to (124) and the accompanying example lists

Read the official sourceChecked on 8 August 2026

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

When are you a deployer under the AI Act?

This applies now

Coming up

What decides whether this is about you

Follow-up questions

Applies now

From 2 December 2027

Source and locator

Record role and classification for each AI system

Zahed Ashkara

When are you a deployer under the AI Act?

This applies now

Coming up

What decides whether this is about you

How this looks in practice4 practice examples

What the Commission says4 guidance statements

Follow-up questions

Applies now

From 2 December 2027

Source and locator

Record role and classification for each AI system

Zahed Ashkara