What’s Driving the EU’s AI Act Shake-Up?

With the European Commission set to unveil reforms to its landmark AI Act next week, member states remain divided over how far the changes should go. The European Commission is preparing to unveil amendments to the AI Act on November 19 as part of the Digital Omnibus, an extensive package intended to align and simplify the EU's digital regulatory framework.

The move to revise the AI Act follows sustained lobbying from US tech giants. In October, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include Apple, Meta, and Amazon, launched a campaign pushing for simplification not only of the AI Act but of the EU’s entire digital rulebook. Meanwhile, EU officials have reportedly engaged with the Trump administration on these issues. One senior official told the Financial Times that there had been ongoing discussions around adjustments to digital rules, including the AI Act.

Publicly, the European Commission denies any external sway on its reform agenda. "The US will not decide on our simplification agenda. It's our sovereign right to legislate. We have democratic processes in place," said a Commission spokesperson in a press conference on Wednesday.

The reform reflects pressure not only from abroad but also from divisions and demands within the EU itself. Denmark, currently holding the EU Council Presidency, has pushed for a sweeping overhaul. Officials in Copenhagen argue that the AI Act is overly complex and have called for "genuine simplification" to determine what “should be retained, revised, or repealed ”across the digital framework, rather than a symbolic reform. Germany has taken the opposite approach. In a "non-paper" sent to Brussels, Berlin warned against any fundamental alteration to the AI Act’s structure or objectives, arguing that the law must retain its original scope and integrity. The Netherlands has taken a more balanced position, supporting efforts to reduce regulatory burdens while defending the digital rulebook's overarching goals.

Pressure is building from within the European tech sector. In July 2025, 56 EU-based AI companies—including France's Mistral AI and Germany's Aleph Alpha—signed a public letter urging the Commission to pause and simplify parts of the AI Act. These companies warned that compliance costs could stifle innovation if left unaddressed. However, not all industry voices are convinced that the draft reforms go far enough. The German Association of the Electrical and Digital Industry (ZVEI) criticized the proposals for failing to address "core structural problems" and called the changes insufficient to bring about fundamental reform.

The Commission has framed the proposed amendments as part of a broader strategy to foster EU innovation. Officials have linked the Digital Omnibus to the Competitiveness Compass, launched last year to foster a more supportive environment for the EU’s tech sector and promote the development of homegrown innovation.

A leaked draft of the proposal suggests the changes will focus on procedural and governance reforms to the AI Act, which entered into force in 2024. A Commission spokesperson told Tech Policy Press that the institution “will always remain fully behind the AI Act and its objectives.”

Delays on high-risk AI standards

One of the most contentious proposals in the draft is a potential delay to the enforcement of the AI Act’s high-risk requirements, due to slow progress on technical standards. "A reflection is still ongoing within the Commission," a spokesperson told Tech Policy Press, adding that "various options are being considered, but no formal decision has been taken at this stage."

The potential delay reflects pressure from national authorities. Denmark and Germany have both pushed for a one-year extension. A spokesperson from Germany’s Federal Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernization said that a delay “would allow sufficient time for the practical application of European standards by AI providers, with standards still currently being elaborated.”

Denmark emphasized that SMEs and startups, in particular, face steep compliance hurdles without finalized guidance.

The Netherlands, however, favors enforcement clarity over delays. "To help the AI industry, the Netherlands believes that providing more clarity about the enforcement of the AI Act is a preferred strategy over extending its deadlines," a spokesperson for the State Secretary for Digitalization at the Ministry of the Interior of the Netherlands told Tech Policy Press. "Clarity about what is needed to comply with the AI Act is of utmost importance to improve trust and establish a European internal market for human-centric and trustworthy AI."

Civil society organizations share this concern. "Postponing enforcement is an unsatisfactory answer to delays which were both foreseeable and avoidable," said Laura Cabrera of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Any delays in application of the rules will leave people unprotected from the harms that high-risk AI systems create."

Despite these different views, among those likely to benefit from any regulatory easing are Europe's own tech startups and companies. Germany, France, and the Netherlands are among the world's biggest investors in their AI sectors, and industry actors in these countries have been vocal advocates for simplification measures that would reduce compliance burdens.

Centralizing AI governance

Another major reform under consideration is expanding and centralizing oversight powers within the Commission’s AI Office. Currently responsible for general-purpose AI models (GPAI), the office would gain new authority to oversee all AI systems based on GPAI and conduct conformity assessments for certain high-risk systems. The Commission would also gain new authority to perform conformity assessments for certain high-risk systems and supervise online services deemed to pose “systemic risk” under the Digital Services Act. This would shift more power to Brussels and expand the mandate of the Commission’s AI Office beyond its current role supervising GPAI.

Scaling up the AI Office would require significant capacity expansion. Key leadership posts remain unfilled, including the head of the safety unit and chief scientific advisor. Observers point to structural barriers such as uncompetitive salaries and lengthy recruitment processes, which make it difficult to attract top AI talent.

Despite these criticisms, some lawmakers view the expansion as a step in the right direction. Andreas Schwab, a conservative German Member of the European Parliament (MEP), said that strengthening the AI Office is an important step towards effectively supervising high-performance models across Europe.

Green MEP Alexandra Geese, also from Germany, agreed that “centralizing AI supervision in the Commission’s AI Office could be an advantage for the enforcement of the rules as regards the biggest AI companies,” but warned that this approach “risks concentrating enforcement in a body that is neither politically neutral nor sufficiently independent from the Commission’s wider policy agenda.”

Simplification or deregulation?

While tech companies and their associations have pushed for what they call “simplification” of the AI Act’s compliance regime, civil society organizations warn that the term risks becoming a euphemism for deregulation, weakening protections in the digital realm.

"This is a clear push to dismantle digital rights and fundamental protections, as part of the EU's wider deregulation agenda," Vieth-Ditlmann from the nonprofit AlgorithmWatch told Tech Policy Press. "There is no reason for delaying key elements like penalties for selling dangerous AI systems. On the contrary, laws like the AI Act are there to help companies comply with their fundamental rights obligations."

On Thursday, over 120 civil society groups signed an open letter calling on the Commission to halt the Digital Omnibus, describing it as the "biggest rollback of digital rights in EU history."

"The Commission’s ‘simplification’ agenda, as revealed in the Digital Omnibus leak, does not strengthen Europe’s tech sector," said MEP Geese. "It weakens transparency, delays enforcement, and extends exemptions to mid-caps that don’t need them—all while giving dominant US firms a freer hand in Europe’s market. If these changes go ahead, they will not make Europe more competitive nor will they work towards technological sovereignty; they will make it more dependent."

Once formally proposed, the Digital Omnibus package will require approval from a majority of EU Member States and the European Parliament.