Loading page…
The first information demands turn the EU’s general-purpose AI rules from written obligations into a live compliance process. A request is not a finding of wrongdoing, but the answers can determine whether the matter escalates.
Listen to this story
The EU AI Office has begun testing whether more than 30 global general-purpose AI providers can document compliance with the AI Act’s newly enforceable obligations. Companies must address model security, independent evaluations, post-market monitoring, and training-data disclosures. Inadequate or misleading replies can trigger fines of up to €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover, plus possible corrective measures or EU availability restrictions.
Requests seek evidence on model attack defenses, independent testing, post-market monitoring, and training-content summaries.
The Commission’s demands could precede formal investigations, but they are not findings of violations.
OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google were reportedly contacted; the Commission has not published a recipient list.
The European Commission has sent information requests to more than 30 AI companies worldwide under the EU AI Act, opening a preliminary process that can lead to formal investigations. The requests put providers’ safety and copyright practices under direct regulatory scrutiny.
Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, said on August 29 that the EU AI Office had formally contacted providers of general-purpose AI models in different regions. Those obligations became enforceable on August 2, and the Act’s transparency rules took effect in August.
The wider law prohibits some AI activities judged to carry unacceptable risk and sets transparency standards for other AI services. The new requests narrow that broad framework into specific materials the Commission can assess, rather than an immediate ruling that a provider has violated the Act.
The Commission said the requests went to more than 30 AI companies worldwide and may precede formal investigations.
Incorrect, incomplete or misleading responses may bring a fine of up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, whichever is higher.
In serious cases, the AI Office can require corrective measures or restrict a model’s public availability in the EU. No such action has been announced. Euractiv reportedly identified OpenAI, Anthropic and Google among the recipients, though the supplied evidence does not provide a Commission-published recipient list.
At a G20 innovation ministerial meeting, the United States argued against AI-specific rules and promoted the technology-neutral Carolina Principles. US tech adviser Michael Kratsios said policymakers should not treat each emerging technology as a separate policy problem. Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk also argued for fewer constraints on AI expansion.
That contrast leaves companies facing two distinct policy approaches: Washington’s call to avoid AI-specific regulation, and Brussels’s first formal demands for evidence on model safeguards and transparency. The immediate unresolved question is whether the Commission finds answers that warrant an investigation or corrective action.
Story updates
EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen defended Europe’s ability to address risks from highly capable AI in an October 9, 2026 Reuters interview. She also said she was assessing companies’ responses to regulatory information requests—a current enforcement step behind her assurance that the bloc is “well equipped” to handle those risks.
Her comments come amid concerns that AI systems could move beyond human control. Reuters linked those concerns to recent incidents at OpenAI and Anthropic. Virkkunen’s response was to defend the legal framework already in place: she said the EU’s AI Act can address the safety and security risks posed by increasingly capable models.
The EU adopted its AI rules two years ago. The law regulates use of the technology according to risk, rather than treating every use alike. Some companies now argue that the rules are already outdated. Virkkunen rejected that criticism, saying legislators had anticipated coming developments when they designed the requirements for assessing risks and monitoring models.
Regulators are also giving companies guidance on how to evaluate their models, Virkkunen said. That work includes how much time companies should allocate to evaluations.
Scientific advice is another part of that process. Virkkunen said regulators would take recommendations from a panel of 60 AI experts from universities and institutions into account.
We have our AI Act in place and the AI Act covers the whole life cycle of these models
The Commission’s information-gathering effort began before this interview. In late August, it sent requests to more than 30 AI companies seeking details of their safety and security measures. It then followed up with questions about transparency and copyright obligations.
Virkkunen said she is now assessing the responses. The Commission has not named the companies that received the requests. Asked specifically about Chinese AI startups, however, she confirmed that they had also been contacted.
Virkkunen said the most capable models currently on the market come from the United States and China. She also acknowledged that capable models pose new kinds of risks.
The information requests can lead to investigations, which could result in fines of as much as 7% of a company’s global annual turnover, Reuters reported. That is a potential enforcement consequence, not a penalty announced in the interview.
reuters.comEditorial analysis
The important shift is procedural. The AI Office is building a record on how providers secure, test and monitor models after release before it decides whether to pursue investigations or corrective measures. The next useful signal is whether any request produces a formal case, not the request alone. OpenAI may also face a separate European compliance track: ChatGPT was recently designated as an online search engine under the Digital Services Act, with its own risk-management duties. That does not establish the same overlap for other providers.
Loading discussion...
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.