An agreement seems possible by mid-2023, but this will depend on whether the co-legislators converge on key issues such as the definition of AI, the risk classification and associated regulatory remedies, governance arrangements and enforcement rules.
The European Commission’s proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act
attempts to regulate a wide range of AI applications, aligning them with
EU values and fundamental rights through a risk-based approach. The
scope, instruments and governance framework introduced by the proposal
are still being debated and refined by European co-legislators. Both the
Council of the European Union and the European Parliament have proposed
possible amendments to the regulation, with potentially far-reaching
impacts on its overall scope and content. An agreement seems possible by
mid-2023, but this will depend on whether the co-legislators converge
on key issues such as the definition of AI, the risk classification and
associated regulatory remedies, governance arrangements and enforcement
rules.
The act has been presented as a ‘horizontal’ piece of legislation,
even if several limitations and exemptions apply. This, combined with
the expected, pervasive impact of AI on the economy and society, may
lead it to overlap with several legislative provisions – both horizontal
and sector specific. As a result, gaps and inconsistencies may emerge
that negatively affect legislative quality and regulatory certainty.
This study addresses this issue by analysing the interplay between the
AI Act and EU digital acquis. We map the gaps and limitations
of the AI Act in relation to 14 pieces of legislation. Our research
draws on desk research, qualitative interviews and an online workshop.
We identify eight key areas where challenges may emerge, and make the
following policy recommendations: 1) there is a need to clarify and
align the terminology with the legal categories and notions in existing
EU legislation related to AI; 2) negotiators should ensure better
fine-tuning of the interactions of the act with sector-specific rules
(notably in the health sector); 3) the act should be made consistent
with EU data protection rules, for example regarding the lawfulness of
personal data processing; 4) the act’s risk-based approach features a
number of loopholes that need to be addressed to improve legal certainty
for AI providers and users; 5) while the act aims to complement
existing product safety rules, it requires more detailed provisions to
allow for meaningful integration with EU acquis; 6) the act
introduces a weak enforcement scheme, which should be strengthened and
aligned with other digital policies; 7) EU legislators should tackle the
growing divergence between the stated goals of the act and emerging
data transfer rules; and 8) the act would benefit from exemptions aimed
at promoting scientific research.
CEPS
© CEPS - Centre for European Policy Studies
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article