📢 EU AI ACT MOVES AHEAD DESPITE INDUSTRY AND POLITICAL PUSHBACK

Despite mounting political and industry pressure, the European Commission has firmly rejected calls to delay the implementation of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), affirming its original legislative timeline.

On the 3th of July 2025, the European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier stated unequivocally that there would be "no stop the clock," "no grace period," and "no pause" in the application of the AI Act, dismissing recent lobbying efforts from major global and European tech players such as Alphabet (Google), Meta, ASML, and Mistral.

The regulatory timetable remains intact:

• Provisions of the AI Act began applying in February 2025

• Obligations for general-purpose AI models commence on 2 August 2025

• Rules applicable to high-risk AI systems will take effect in August 2026

  
  

While the Commission acknowledged industry concerns, it signaled possible relief for smaller companies, committing to propose simplification measures later in 2025, particularly to reduce reporting obligations under broader digital legislation.

EU Tech Rules Are Not Up for Negotiation, not even in Global Trade Talks

Simultaneously, EU policymakers have drawn red lines around the AI Act in international negotiations. Henna Virkkunen, European Commission tech chief, categorically rejected any notion that cornerstone digital laws, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA), and AI Act could be used as bargaining chips in trade discussions with the United States and the Trump administration.

These frameworks, she emphasised, are built on European values such as transparency, trustworthiness, and user rights. Contrary to US criticisms suggesting these laws are protectionist or equivalent to digital tariffs, Virkkunen insisted that fines serve enforcement purposes, not trade policy.

Political Fragmentation Grows with Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic Signal Resistance

In a significant development, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson became the first EU government leader to publicly call for a delay of the AI Act, describing its current structure as “confusing.” Kristersson warned that hasty implementation without harmonised technical standards risks undermining Europe’s competitiveness or making certain AI applications unavailable in the EU market. His stance has received support from Swedish MEP Arba Kokalari, as well as interest from Poland and the Czech Republic, who have also shown openness to delay mechanisms.

Kristersson and Kokalari have called for integrating AI Act revisions into the Commission’s upcoming “digital simplification package”, expected to be unveiled later this year.

Industry Pushback Intensifies where Europe’s Top CEOs Call for a "Clock-Stop"

In an open letter, 46 CEOs of Europe’s largest corporations, including Airbus, TotalEnergies, Lufthansa, and ASML, demanded a two-year moratorium on the AI Act’s implementation. The CEOs argue that overlapping and unclear digital regulations across the EU are hampering innovation and deterring investors.

The letter specifically calls for a delay to both:

• the general-purpose AI obligations (August 2025) and

• the high-risk AI rules (August 2026)

  
  

The business leaders propose that a pause would signal the EU’s willingness to support innovation through regulatory clarity and competitiveness, especially in light of ongoing implementation difficulties such as underdeveloped enforcement structures and incomplete harmonised standards.

Transatlantic Tensions Add Complexity

US Vice-President JD Vance has publicly criticised the AI Act, warning that overregulation may damage a transformative industry. His remarks came during a recent visit to Europe, where he echoed concerns from American and European businesses.

Within the EU, the debate over how to reconcile innovation with compliance is intensifying. Poland’s recent proposal for a “stop-the-clock” mechanism reflects growing internal concerns about unintended consequences and legal uncertainty. At the same time, creative sectors in Europe remain concerned about AI models trained on copyrighted content without consent, as legislative protections remain unclear.

With minimal movement from lawmakers, resolution on this front may now rest with the courts, which will need to determine whether training practices involving copyrighted material are legal under EU law.

A Call for Strategic Leadership and Cohesion

In an op-ed published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), Kai Zenner (Digital Policy Adviser of MEP Axel Voss) and Sebastian Hallensleben (Chief Trust Officer at Resaro) urged the Commission to stay the course.

While they acknowledged implementation challenges such as delays in staffing national competent authorities, the ongoing establishment of the AI Office, and the absence of finalised technical standards, they argue that this is no reason to abandon the EU’s regulatory vision.

Instead of a full pause, they propose:

1. Coordinating support structures for SMEs

2. Revisiting enforcement mechanisms to ensure effectiveness and proportionality

3. Developing a Digital Industrial Strategy grounded in Europe’s long-term technological sovereignty

The op-ed warns that yielding to lobbying or geopolitical pressure would be a strategic mistake that undermines the EU’s digital credibility.

Conclusion

The EU’s AI Act is evolving under intense pressure, both from within and outside Europe. Yet for now, the legislative calendar remains firm, and businesses cannot afford to wait. As implementation milestones draw near, the time to act is now.

Our firm is closely following all regulatory, political, and legal developments surrounding the EU AI Act. We remain available to assist with:

• AI risk classification analysis

• Compliance strategies and documentation

• Engagement with supervisory authorities and legal audits

For tailored advice or training on your obligations under the AI Act, please contact us at info@pelaghiaslaw.com.

Our team stands ready to assist with AI system classification, compliance planning, regulatory engagement, and strategic legal risk assessments.