A Frozen Clock and a Frozen Problem

Verfassungsblog AI Act · 2026-09-01 · EU · verified record

Themes: Artificial intelligence · Cross-sector · Online platforms

Brussels, do we have a problem with the AI Act? My answer, in essence, was yes. Actually, more than one: overregulation and excessive demand on high-risk AI systems. In June 2026, when the European Parliament adopted the Digital Omnibus on AI, it seemed Brussels had answered my question in its own way. The language surrounding it - "simplification", "burden reduction", "protecting Europe's competitiveness" - suggested that Mario Draghi's words in its 2021 Report were somehow heeded. Sadly, the new changes are more cosmetic than real. In reality, Brussels only bought (itself) more time. ## What Actually Changed with the Digital Omnibus Compliance deadlines for standalone high-risk AI systems under Annex III of the Digital Omnibus on AI moved from August 2026 to December 2027, a seventeen-month reprieve. High-risk systems embedded as safety components under Annex I gained twelve months, from August 2027 to August 2028. The Article 50 transparency obligations were partially deferred for systems already on the market. The most visible new substantive amendment refers to the prohibition of AI systems designed to generate non-consensual intimate imagery, with compliance required by December 2026. That last element deserves to be said plainly: it is a good rule, and it closes a real gap in the AI Act. It works as a reminder that the EU can still legislate on substance, not just on timing, when it chooses to. If the rest of the Omnibus had been drafted with that same instinct - identify a specific, demonstrable problem and fix it - this would have been a very different piece.…