As AI regulations come to the EU, a long and arduous push is hitting the breaker wall of political trepidation. This week, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson met with EU leaders in Brussels to argue in favor of postponing the rollout of the AI Act, calling it “confusing.”
Specifically, Kristersson told the Swedish Parliament that “an example of confusing EU regulations is the fact that the so-called AI Act is to come into force without there being common standards.”
Standards appear to be the declared sticking point, although one can detect the insistent subtext of innovation and competition in Kristersson’s assertion, reported by Politico, that rolling out the AI Act as planned could “lead to Europe falling behind technologically.”
In a similar vein, the coverage quotes Swedish European Parliament conservative lawmaker Arba Kokalari, who believes, “if standards are not ready in time, we should stop the clock for certain parts of the AI Act and give companies more time.”
It is an odd request for the EU, given the amount of ink and sweat spilled over the rapid, “move fast and break things” pace at which generative AI is developing, and the relatively plodding progress of standards. However, it seems to be catching on among member states, with officials in Czech Republic and Poland expressing tentative support for delaying the AI Act.
Nor is it confined to government. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) has issued a statement emphasizing “the immense risks of implementing the AI Act without a finalised framework.”
Unsurprisingly, the industry’s cry is made with more urgency, as it calls for “a bold ‘stop-the-clock’ intervention” to give companies a fair shake and legal certainty in the absence of standards.
CCIA Europe SVP Daniel Friedlaender says that “Europe cannot lead on AI with one foot on the brake. With critical parts of the AI Act still missing just weeks before rules kick in, we need a pause to get the Act right, or risk stalling innovation altogether.”
US influence driving EU hesitation, says IAPP
What some see as prudence, others see as cowardice. A statement from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) alleges as much: “at first glance, this looks like prudent regulatory realism,” it says of the push to put the AI Act on hold. “But a deeper look suggests something else: a loss of nerve at the very moment Europe needs genuine leadership.”
The group cites “direct requests from the U.S. government” as a motivating force for the pause proposal, and suggests that, while there is work to be done, a pause could be a slippery slope to something more existential.
For example, the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” includes a 10-year moratorium on all federal AI legislation.
“Let us be clear: simplification, clarification and even some recalibration of the AI Act are necessary,” it says. “Giving the AI ecosystem a few more months to prepare for the application of the new, high-risk obligations might even be imperative. But that’s not the same as deregulation.”
The group questions why the EU is so quick to turn its back on legislation that, until recently, was being held up as “the flagship of the EU’s claim to global leadership in shaping rules for emerging technologies.”
“Submitting to geopolitical pressure would be a self-inflicted wound,” it says. “Washington has reportedly asked Brussels to stop the law’s enforcement. The EU should not subordinate its regulatory autonomy to a negotiating chip in trade talks.”
The IAPP suggests three “bold steps” the EU can take to avoid subjugating itself to U.S. whims. These are as follows: “First, it should consolidate the scattered efforts to support small and medium-sized enterprises.”
“Second, it should reconsider whether AI Act enforcement should really be left to decentralized authorities, and whether it should really be separate from the enforcement of other digital regulation.”
And third, “it should roll out a comprehensive ‘Digital Industrial Strategy’ focused on building sovereign digital infrastructure where it matters most: AI compute, AI quality with measurable indicators, resilient cloud, trusted connectivity and applied AI.”
“This is not about replacing global partners, but about ensuring Europe can shape – and not just consume – tomorrow’s technologies and make better use of our strengths as well as strategic advantages.”
Unlikely to be a ‘Brussels effect’ from AI Act
But can Europe actually shape tomorrow’s technologies? Commentary on EJIL:Talk, the blog of the European Journal of International Law, interrogates the so-called “Brussels effect” – referring to the EU’s “capacity to shape global regulation by extending the reach of its own legislative decisions.”
While the AI Act has positioned the EU to appear as a leader, says the piece, it is more or less a mirage.
“AI regulation has changed the game: The EU AI Act does not generate a Brussels effect, as it is closely – though not overtly – tied to international AI standards predominantly influenced by non-EU actors. In terms of legally integrating AI standards, even countries like Brazil, which once leaned towards EU regulation, are increasingly adopting their own approach to AI governance.”
As such, “the EU AI Act’s influence is thus impressive from afar, but elusive in practice.”
EU seeks stakeholder input on high-risk AI
The EU’s AI Office has launched a survey on the question, specifically for “targeted stakeholder consultation on classification of AI systems as high-risk.”
The questionnaire aims to collect input on “practical examples of AI systems and issues to be clarified in the Commission’s guidelines on the classification of high-risk AI systems and future guidelines on high-risk requirements and obligations, as well as responsibilities along the AI value chain.”
The AI Act has two categories of AI systems classified as high-risk: “AI systems that are embedded as safety components in products or that themselves are products which could have an adverse impact on health and safety of persons,” and “AI systems that in view of their intended purpose are considered to pose a significant risk to health, safety or fundamental rights.”
Article Topics
AI Act | biometric identification | Europe | facial recognition | legislation
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202506/should-the-eu-put-a-pause-on-rolling-out-the-ai-act