From the journal

EU Council and Parliament Reach Provisional Agreement on AI Act Digital Omnibus, 7 May 2026

On 7 May 2026, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament agreed provisional amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act). The deal postpones high-risk AI compliance dates, defers watermarking duties to December 2026, and adds a prohibition on non-consensual intimate imagery generators. Formal adoption is pending.

2 min read

On 7 May 2026, Council and Parliament negotiators concluded a trilogue on the Digital Omnibus on AI. The agreement is provisional. Both co-legislators must still endorse and formally adopt the amended text. The European Commission proposed the package in late 2025. The targets are Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and its compliance calendar.

The deal defers Annex III high-risk AI compliance to 2 December 2027. It defers Annex I product-embedded high-risk AI obligations to 2 August 2028. Watermarking duties for providers under Article 50(2) shift to 2 December 2026. Other Article 50 transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026 as scheduled. A new prohibition targets AI systems generating non-consensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse material, with compliance due by 2 December 2026.

Providers of high-risk AI systems gain time to complete conformity assessments, technical documentation, and quality management. Deployers in regulated sectors retain transparency duties starting 2 August 2026. Operators of generative tools producing non-consensual intimate imagery must withdraw these services by 2 December 2026. Banks, insurers, employers, and public authorities using Annex III systems gain the deferral most directly.

The agreement is political. Final text depends on legal-linguistic review and formal votes in both institutions. Member State implementing measures, including designated market-surveillance authorities, sit at varying readiness. The codes of practice on general-purpose AI and on marking AI-generated content continue to evolve in parallel.

Licentium advises crypto, AI, and digital asset clients on AI Act readiness and works with EU counsel on cross-border filings. Contact us to discuss conformity, governance, and disclosures. Work we undertake includes AI Act gap analysis, Article 50 transparency mapping, general-purpose AI compliance, prohibited-practice risk reviews, and product-classification opinions.

Source: Council of the European Union, press release "Artificial intelligence: Council and Parliament agree to simplify and streamline rules", 7 May 2026, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/05/07/artificial-intelligence-council-and-parliament-agree-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/, confirmed 14 May 2026.

The information provided is not legal, tax, investment, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your own legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. Some parts of the text may be automatically generated. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information.

AI Regulatory

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).