Regulatory uncertainty with immediate operational consequences
Following more than 12 hours of negotiations on 28–29 April 2026, the European Parliament and the Council failed to reach an agreement on the proposed AI Omnibus reform of the EU AI Act.
This development creates a direct and immediate impact for companies that had structured their compliance strategies around a potential postponement of key obligations, in particular, the expected delay of requirements applicable to high-risk AI systems.
In the absence of agreement, the original timeline prevails and therefore high-risk AI obligations remain scheduled for 2 August 2026.
For many organisations, this is not a theoretical issue. It affects:
compliance roadmaps budget allocations product development timelines procurement decisions internal governance structures
A structural disagreement at the core of the negotiations
The collapse of the negotiations reflects a fundamental legal divergence, whether AI systems embedded in regulated products (such as medical devices, machinery, vehicles or consumer products) should remain fully within the scope of the AI Act, or fall exclusively under existing sector-specific regulation
This is not a purely technical question. It determines the scope, intensity and timing of compliance obligations across entire industries.
A shifting landscape: from anticipated flexibility to legal certainty
Over the past months, many companies had adopted a wait-and-see approach, anticipating that the AI Omnibus reform would introduce additional flexibility.
That assumption is no longer tenable.
The current situation requires a shift in posture from regulatory anticipation to compliance based on the law as it stands today. At the same time, companies must remain capable of adapting quickly should political negotiations resume.
What this means in practice?
In this context, a purely reactive or delayed approach creates risk.
A robust strategy should be based on three principles:
1. Re-anchor compliance on current deadlines
Companies should immediately reassess internal timelines to ensure alignment with the August 2026 milestone.
2. Identify exposure to high-risk AI classification
Mapping AI systems, including those embedded in products, is critical to determine:
qualification under the AI Act applicable obligations prioritisation of compliance efforts
3. Build adaptable governance frameworks
Given the likelihood of further regulatory adjustments, governance structures must be:
robust enough to comply now, and flexible enough to adapt later
Beyond compliance: a strategic inflection point
The current regulatory uncertainty should not be seen solely as a constraint.
It is also an opportunity to:
structure AI governance early embed legal risk management into product design strengthen internal accountability frameworks
Organisations that act early will be better positioned to:
manage regulatory scrutiny accelerate compliant product deployment maintain competitive advantage
How we can assist you
The current situation illustrates a broader reality: AI regulation is no longer a forward-looking issue, it is a present operational and strategic challenge.
Our firm supports companies and international groups in navigating this evolving landscape with a pragmatic and implementation-focused approach.
We assist clients concretely in:
reassessing compliance roadmaps in light of regulatory developments mapping and classifying AI systems, including complex or embedded use cases designing and implementing AI governance frameworks aligned with the EU AI Act structuring internal decision-making processes (legal, technical, product, compliance) securing product strategies and go-to-market timelines in a moving regulatory environment
What this looks like in practice
Our support is designed to be directly actionable. For example, we regularly assist clients in:
Auditing AI use cases across business units to identify high-risk systems and prioritise compliance efforts
Structuring governance models (roles, escalation, validation processes) integrating legal, technical and operational stakeholders
Drafting internal policies and documentation required under the AI Act (risk management, documentation, monitoring frameworks)
Advising on product design choices to mitigate classification risks (e.g. avoiding high-risk qualification where appropriate)
Supporting procurement and vendor assessments involving AI systems
Aligning AI projects with GDPR and data governance frameworks
A disciplined approach to uncertainty
In periods of regulatory uncertainty, the key differentiator is not anticipation — it is control.
Companies that will successfully navigate the implementation of the AI Act are those that:
act on the basis of existing obligations structure their governance early retain flexibility to adapt
If your organisation is reassessing its AI compliance timeline or governance framework in light of recent developments, this is the right moment to realign your strategy.
We would be pleased to discuss how to translate these regulatory developments into concrete, workable solutions tailored to your organisation.
