Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
2026 FIFA World Cup
17JUN

AI Act fines land on a stale register

3 min read
10:21UTC

The Commission gained the power to fine general-purpose AI model providers on 2 August. Its own list of national contact points still carries a footer reading 'Last update: 26 September 2025', with three member states blank.

SportDeveloping
Key takeaway

Brussels can now fine model providers, yet three member states list no regulator to file with.

The European Commission became able on 2 August to fine a general-purpose AI model provider up to €15,000,000 or 3 per cent of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher, under Article 101 of the EU AI Act. We pointed readers to that date in April, when we first reported the provision and the ceiling. What April could not show was what the enforcement network would look like when the date arrived, and the answer sits on the Commission's own website. The list of national single points of contact Brussels is obliged to publish carries a footer reading "Last update: 26 September 2025"⁠1.

Denmark, Finland and Hungary each get a hyphen where a contact point should sit, and the Cyprus row carries a hyperlink whose address contains text pasted out of the Spain row⁠2. Article 70, read with Article 113, required every member state to designate a market surveillance authority and a notifying authority and to publish contact details electronically by 2 August 2025. The same article puts a duty on Brussels: "the Commission shall make a list of the single points of contact publicly available"⁠3. That page hangs off a governance and enforcement section the Commission itself refreshed on 31 July 2026.

A company seeking a Danish, Finnish or Hungarian regulator to file with therefore has nowhere on the Commission's page to write to. The AI Act tracker maintained by the Future of Life Institute, an independent non-profit and not a Commission register, recorded at its 17 June 2026 update that 9 of 27 member states had designated both required authorities, 12 had partial arrangements, and 6 had designated neither: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia and Greece⁠4. Those figures are seven weeks old and we have not extended them to August. Tracker and Commission also contradict each other on the three blank rows, which sit in the tracker's fully designated column⁠5.

Two qualifications stand between the new power and an actual fine. Article 111(3) gives providers of general-purpose models "placed on the market before 2 August 2025" until 2 August 2027 to comply with the Regulation⁠6, so the model families a reader could name by brand stay outside the enforceable set, and any first case concerns something launched in the past twelve months. The AI Office has also signalled a collaborative, risk-based approach before penalties. Article 101 itself runs to six paragraphs, gives a provider the right to be heard before any fine lands, and leaves the Court of Justice of the European Union unlimited jurisdiction to review or vary the amount⁠7.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The European Union's AI Act now lets regulators fine companies that break AI rules, starting 2 August. But the Commission's own webpage listing which national office to contact in each EU country is out of date, with three countries' details missing entirely and one country's link showing text copied from another. It is a bit like a country announcing a new speeding fine but leaving the sign for where to send your complaint pointing at the wrong police station. The fine power itself works regardless; it is the administrative paperwork around it that has not caught up.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Article 70 assigns the register upkeep to the Commission but sets no penalty or audit trigger for staleness, so the obligation carries no enforcement teeth of its own; unlike the fine ceiling in Article 99, which has a number attached, register accuracy has none.

The Cyprus row's pasted Spain text points to a manual, non-templated update process: a spreadsheet or CMS field edited by hand rather than one populated from a single member-state submission schema, the kind of process failure that compounds every time a national authority's designation status changes.

First Reported In

Update #14 · AI Act fines arrive, three states list no regulator

AI Act tracker, Future of Life Institute· 4 Aug 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
French Football Federation
French Football Federation
The FFF called an 11:00 CEST press conference for 28 July, at its Paris headquarters, following an extraordinary executive committee meeting, at which Zinedine Zidane is expected to be presented as head coach succeeding Didier Deschamps. As of this writing no communique confirms the appointment, contract length or start date.
Morocco
Morocco
Morocco is pushing for the 2030 final at its Grand Stade Hassan II in Casablanca, a planned 115,000-seat venue that would be the world's largest football stadium on completion. The venue is contested by a Spanish petition for the Santiago Bernabeu, and FIFA has fixed neither the venue nor the tournament's proposed 64-team format.
FIFA
FIFA
FIFA's first tournament report, published 27 July, itemises nearly 300,000 accredited personnel, 73,700 security staff and 300,000 square metres of custom-grown turf, with no revenue or cost figure attached. As a Swiss association answering to its own Congress rather than a treasury, FIFA has followed the same operational-before-financial sequence it used after Qatar 2022.
Javier Tebas / La Liga
Javier Tebas / La Liga
La Liga president Javier Tebas said on 21 July that FIFA's system is rotten from the root and that Gianni Infantino's time as president has, in his words, concluded. Tebas has no vote in FIFA's process, so days after the IOC declined jurisdiction over a separate ethics complaint, he used the only instrument he has.
Mexico City government
Mexico City government
Head of government Clara Brugada presented a closing report on 22 July crediting the tournament with 44 billion pesos of economic activity, 2,000-plus accelerated public works and 100,000 formal jobs in June alone. The city has not published the method behind that figure, and three other Mexican bodies count the same five weeks differently.
Town of Foxborough
Town of Foxborough
Foxborough answered Kraft Group's June lawsuit on 7 July with a 61-page counterclaim, calling the stadium's owners 'a collection of multibillion-dollar corporations' trying to shift its $7.8 million security bill onto taxpayers. The town says its licensing power and its billing power run through the same board, and it wants the court to award its own costs too.