Skip to main content
Praxikon
Back to the explorer
ObligationUpcomingv1.0.0

Article 20: corrective actions and duty of information

A provider that considers, or has reason to consider, that a high-risk AI system it has placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with the Regulation must immediately take the necessary corrective actions and inform the distributors accordingly, and, where applicable, also the deployers, the authorised representative and the importers. Where that system also presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1), the provider must immediately investigate the causes and inform the competent market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44.

The official source remains authoritative. This is general information about obligations and not legal advice. See this object on the map

Address and citation

This object has an address of its own that is never renamed or reused. Store the identifier in your own file, not the title or the link.

Identifier
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions
Payload hash (sha256)
3da4413e7f76d6cd26cf52cc894dc8b6637916ab4ed1d39776d4446a96c5232c

Citation line

Praxikon, "Article 20: corrective actions and duty of information", praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions@1.0.0, dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0), effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z, sha256 3da4413e7f76d6cd26cf52cc894dc8b6637916ab4ed1d39776d4446a96c5232c
Version
1.0.0
Legal time (effective_at)
8 August 2026
Knowledge time (known_at)
14 August 2026
Closed on
Not closed
Application date
2 December 2027
Topics
high-risk-requirements, post-market

Review status: Placed against the official source (14 August 2026). Next check due by 10 February 2027. The check date is the knowledge date of this version; no later recheck has been recorded.

Who must act and who is affected

On an obligation the addressee is recorded separately from the party that is merely affected. That difference decides who a supervisory authority addresses and who has work to do without the duty resting on them.

Duty holder

Affected actor

Oversight

Evidence owner

What this object links to

Every relation appears below as a path: from the source with its locator, through the conditions and exceptions of the object carrying the relation, to the consequence. A locator belongs to a statement in the data and not to a relation, so the source is the source anchor of the carrying object.

Who carries the duty

1 of 1 shown

The duty rests on this role. A supervisory authority addresses this role when it is not met.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Who is affected without being the addressee

4 of 4 shown

This role is practically affected without being the addressee: it receives the information, has to cooperate, or absorbs the consequences in its own process.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Who supervises this

1 of 1 shown

This role supervises and receives the notifications. It is the institutional role, not the national body that fills it.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Who owns the evidence

1 of 1 shown

This duty holder creates, maintains and can produce the evidence.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be done

1 of 1 shown

This is what concretely has to be done under the obligation.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What has to be recorded

1 of 1 shown

This is what has to be in the file to show that the action was carried out.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What keeps it in place

1 of 1 shown

This is what keeps compliance in place over time, periodic or event-driven.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

Public tools

1 of 1 shown

This is the public route a reader can actually use.

  1. Source

    Official fact on this object, with its locator.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allApplies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
    • Condition | any ofThe second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
    • Condition | any ofThe distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.
    • ExceptionArticle 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

    As long as this exception is not ruled out, the outcome stays conditional and you have to establish it yourself.

    Consequence

What points at this object

Objects hanging off this obligation

4 of 4 shown

The object belongs to this obligation. The source line it hangs off sits there.

  1. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    • Condition | allTo be set up before a high-risk AI system is placed on the market or put into service, and to be revisited on every change in the customer chain or in the way the system can be switched off remotely.

    Relation recorded on: Set up the procedure for corrective actions and notification

    Consequence

  2. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Escalation gate on a suspicion of non-conformity

    Consequence

  3. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Record of corrective actions

    Consequence

  4. Source

    This object carries no official fact of its own. The source line below sits on the obligation it hangs off; the link itself is recorded editorially.

    • EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689

      Locator: Article 20(1)-(2)

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689

      Open official source

    • Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744

      Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

      praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744

      Open official source

    Via

    No condition or exception recorded on this object.

    Relation recorded on: Full text of Article 20

    Consequence

What this object states

Official fact

Attributable to a named primary source, with a locator. Where they differ, the official source prevails.

  • Paragraph 1. Providers of high-risk AI systems which consider or have reason to consider that a high-risk AI system that they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation shall immediately take the necessary corrective actions to bring that system into conformity, to withdraw it, to disable it, or to recall it, as appropriate. They shall inform the distributors of the high-risk AI system concerned and, where applicable, the deployers, the authorised representative and importers accordingly. Paragraph 2. Where the high-risk AI system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk, it shall immediately investigate the causes, in collaboration with the reporting deployer, where applicable, and inform the market surveillance authorities competent for the high-risk AI system concerned and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate for that high-risk AI system in accordance with Article 44, in particular, of the nature of the non-compliance and of any relevant corrective action taken.

  • For the Annex III route this requirement applies from 2 December 2027; for high-risk AI in regulated products (Annex I) from 2 August 2028.

    • Locator: Article 1, point (40)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (c), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744Open official source

Our interpretation

Our own reading. It can change without the law changing, and it is not the position of a supervisory authority.

  • This provision is rarely read as a procedure, and that is exactly where it goes wrong. Article 20 places four measures side by side that differ sharply in practice, and those four are not legally equivalent. Recall and withdrawal are defined in Article 3(16) and (17), and the knowledge base carries those terms separately; the difference between them is the point in the chain. Bringing a system into conformity is the patch. Disabling is the odd one out: it is practically the heaviest switch, because it stops a customer who is running the system, and it is at the same time the only one of the four the Regulation nowhere defines. Anyone who copies that word into a contract or procedure without deciding for themselves what it means leaves the heaviest measure the vaguest. The second half is the notification, and in practice that is what fails most often. Paragraph 1 asks you to reach your distributors and, where applicable, your deployers, authorised representatives and importers, which is only possible if you hold a current list of who runs the system in which version and through which contact you reach them. That list is not a by-product of your CRM: resale, white labelling and integration mean you have customers you do not know.

  • Paragraph 2 and Article 73 are often built as a single reporting channel, and that goes wrong in two ways. The trigger differs: Article 73 concerns a serious incident that has occurred, Article 20(2) a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1), that is, a risk to the health, safety or fundamental rights of persons. That is not a tidy split between past and future: a serious incident that has occurred usually also means the system presents a risk, so in practice both provisions often fire at the same time. Nor do the recipients differ entirely, because both routes run to market surveillance authorities. The difference sits in the detail: Article 73(1) points to the authorities of the Member States where the incident occurred, Article 20(2) to the authorities competent for the system concerned, and only Article 20(2) adds the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44. Only Article 73, moreover, sets hard deadlines. So build one internal process with two exits, not two separate channels and not one channel that forgets the notified body.

    • Locator: Article 20(2), Article 73(1)-(2) and Article 79(1)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source

  • Two things within this duty are unsettled. First, what "immediately" requires: Article 20 sets no period. The closest anchor in the Regulation is Article 73(2), which ties "immediately" to the moment the provider has established a causal link between the system and the incident, or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, with an outer limit of fifteen days after becoming aware. We read Article 20 in that light: act once the signal is confirmed, and not only after a full internal investigation has been completed, because paragraph 2 places the investigation of causes alongside the measures rather than before them. A defensible alternative reading is that a provider first has reasonable time to verify and that "immediately" only starts running once the non-conformity is established. Second, the threshold "reason to consider": it is nowhere settled whether a complaint from a deployer, a deviating test result or a signal from the post-market monitoring of Article 72 already meets it. Whoever records that themselves can later demonstrate the moment of becoming aware; whoever does not has to reconstruct it after the fact.

    • Locator: Article 20(2), Article 73(1)-(2) and Article 79(1)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689Open official source

Recommended step

A practical step we consider appropriate. Not an obligation following from the Regulation.

  • Write out the four measures in paragraph 1 as four concrete scenarios with an owner, a decision maker and a lead time, and decide for yourself what disabling means in your system, because the Regulation does not define that term. Test at least once whether you can actually disable or recall a system without needing a fresh decision to do so. Also keep a record, per system version, of who runs it and through which contact you reach that party, and record which signal meets the "reason to consider" threshold in your organisation, so that the moment of becoming aware is demonstrable rather than something reconstructed after the fact.

When this applies

  1. 1Applies to providers of high-risk AI systems as soon as they consider, or have reason to consider, that a system they have placed on the market or put into service is not in conformity with this Regulation. For the standalone Annex III route (Article 6(2)) the date is 2 December 2027. For systems embedded as a safety component in products covered by the Annex I harmonisation legislation (Article 6(1)) the date is 2 August 2028.
  2. 2The second layer in paragraph 2 is added only where the system presents a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1) and the provider becomes aware of that risk. The investigation of causes and the duty to inform the market surveillance authorities and, where applicable, the notified body that issued a certificate under Article 44, then come on top of the corrective actions under paragraph 1.
  3. 3The distributor, the importer and the deployer appear here as affected parties, but that is not their only possible position. Anyone who puts their name or trade mark on a high-risk system already placed on the market, who substantially modifies such a system, or who changes the intended purpose of a system not classified as high-risk so that it becomes high-risk, is considered a provider under Article 25(1) and is subject to the obligations of Article 16. Point (j) of that Article routes straight to Article 20, so this provision then becomes a duty of their own rather than a notification arriving from someone else. In the trade mark case this applies without prejudice to contractual arrangements allocating the obligations otherwise.

When this does not apply

  • Article 20 is by definition about systems already placed on the market or put into service, and that is exactly the group covered by the transitional rule of Article 111(2). That provision was replaced by Article 1, point (39)(a), of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 and now reads: without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation applies to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. The cut-off is therefore no longer a fixed date in paragraph 2: the date of 2 August 2026 that stood there until that amendment has been removed, and the amended paragraph names no date of its own. The carve-out in paragraph 1 covers systems that are components of the large-scale IT systems listed in Annex X; paragraph 1 was not amended and keeps a cut-off of its own. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the reprieve in paragraph 2 does not hold: there, compliance with the requirements and obligations is due by 2 August 2030 in any event. Which date of application of Chapter III is the cut-off is an open point: the object on Article 111 reads it as route dependent, so 2 December 2027 for the Annex III route and 2 August 2028 for the Annex I route, and marks that reading expressly as preliminary. That question is carried there, not here.

Referring to this object

Citation block

Copy this reference into your advice, article or file. The identifier, the version and the hash keep the statement findable later, even once the dataset has moved on.

Reference

Praxikon, "Article 20: corrective actions and duty of information",
praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions@1.0.0,
dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0 (schema 1.5.0),
effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z, known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z,
sha256 3da4413e7f76d6cd26cf52cc894dc8b6637916ab4ed1d39776d4446a96c5232c,
https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-20-corrective-actions
(https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-20-corrective-actions&effective_at=2026-08-08&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en, accessed 2026-09-21)

Short form

praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions@1.0.0 (sha256 3da4413e)

BibTeX

@misc{praxikon-eu-ai-act-obligation-article-20-corrective-actions-1-0-0,
  author       = {{Praxikon}},
  title        = {Article 20: corrective actions and duty of information},
  year         = {2026},
  version      = {1.0.0},
  number       = {praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions},
  howpublished = {AI Act Change \& Evidence Graph, dataset 2.2.0, schema 1.5.0},
  note         = {effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 3da4413e7f76d6cd26cf52cc894dc8b6637916ab4ed1d39776d4446a96c5232c},
  url          = {https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-20-corrective-actions},
  urldate      = {2026-09-21},
  language     = {en}
}

CSL JSON

[
  {
    "id": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions@1.0.0",
    "type": "dataset",
    "title": "Article 20: corrective actions and duty of information",
    "container-title": "AI Act Change & Evidence Graph",
    "publisher": "Praxikon",
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "number": "praxikon:eu:ai-act:obligation:article-20-corrective-actions",
    "URL": "https://www.praxikon.com/en/verkenner/obligation/article-20-corrective-actions",
    "language": "en",
    "issued": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          8,
          14
        ]
      ]
    },
    "accessed": {
      "date-parts": [
        [
          2026,
          9,
          21
        ]
      ]
    },
    "note": "dataset praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph 2.2.0; schema 1.5.0; effective_at 2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z; known_at 2026-08-14T00:00:00.000Z; sha256 3da4413e7f76d6cd26cf52cc894dc8b6637916ab4ed1d39776d4446a96c5232c; retrieved_from https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?id=praxikon%3Aeu%3Aai-act%3Aobligation%3Aarticle-20-corrective-actions&effective_at=2026-08-08&known_at=2026-08-14&lang=en; licence https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms"
  }
]

How to verify a reference later is set out in the methodology. Terms

For agents and integrations

This page and the machine output come from the same object and the same two time axes.

Open as JSONOpen as JSON-LDHuman explanationRead the methodology