13SEP

Six states name no AI Act regulator

2 min read

13:27UTC

The Commission's AI Act enforcement register refreshed on 7 September after eleven months untouched, and six of 27 member states still name no market surveillance authority. The statutory deadline fell 402 days ago.

← Back to Saudi bypass hit, and Riyadh holds fire Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictAssessed

Key takeaway

The AI Act register moved after eleven months and six member states still list no enforcement authority.

The European Commission's page listing market surveillance authorities under the EU AI Act refreshed on 7 September 2026, its first update since 26 September 2025. Twenty-one of 27 member states name an authority. Six do not: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia. ¹

Market surveillance authorities are The National regulators that police AI systems on the ground, take complaints and open investigations. Article 70(2) of the AI Act required every member state to communicate the identity of its notifying authority and its market surveillance authority, and to publish contact details, by 2 August 2025. Measured to today, those six rows sit 402 days past that statutory date. ²

Five of the six blanks belong to states the stale version of the page did not show as blank. That version carried three, Denmark, Finland and Hungary, and was read in the week the AI Office gained the power to fine a general-purpose model provider . Denmark's row now names Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, the Agency for Digital Government, and Finland's names Traficom, the Transport and Communications Agency. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia have appeared as blank. Only Hungary sits on both lists.

The register now shows twice as many gaps as the stale version did, and the refresh revealed that rather than caused it. An eleven-month-old page was concealing the real position. Somebody went into it, updated it, and after that update six rows are still empty, which is a harder fact than a stale footer. the Commission can fine a model provider at the centre; enforcement against a deployed high-risk system runs through a national authority that six governments have not named.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The EU's AI Act is the bloc's main AI law. Since 2 August 2026, it lets Brussels fine the makers of large general-purpose AI models, the kind behind ChatGPT or Mistral's own products, up to 15 million euros or 3% of their worldwide revenue. But the law also requires every EU country to name a national regulator these companies can go to. As of 7 September, six of the 27 countries still have not named anyone. An AI company based in one of those six countries has, on paper, nowhere on the Commission's own list to file with, even though the fining power against it is already active.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Denmark and Finland closed their gaps by assigning the role to an existing agency, Digitaliseringsstyrelsen and Traficom respectively, bodies that already regulate digital government and telecoms.

The six states still blank have not designated any authority at all, existing or new, which points to a failure to start the institutional-assignment process rather than an administrative delay in publishing a webpage.

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from Belgium

Belgium

Primary parallel: GDPR's own national supervisory-authority rollout after 2018 left several member states without a fully resourced authority for years after the regulation took legal effect, without suspending enforcement elsewhere in the bloc.

Counter-parallel: GDPR carried no immediate financial exposure during that gap. The AI Act's GPAI fining power, up to EUR15m or 3% of global turnover, has been live since 2 August 2026, so the same kind of national gap now sits alongside an active penalty clock rather than a grace period.

Consensus view: The Future of Life Institute's independent AI Act tracker recorded, at its 17 June update, that 9 of 27 member states had designated both required authorities and 12 had partial arrangements, a materially fuller picture than the Commission's own register, which as of the 7 September refresh still names no authority at all for six states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia.

Counter-view: The European Commission has signalled a collaborative, risk-based approach before penalties, and Article 101's own procedure gives a provider the right to be heard before any fine is set, which the Commission's staff would argue softens the practical bite of an incomplete national contact list.

Key tension: Whether a GPAI provider can rely on the Commission's own enforcement-contact register when an independent monitor already recorded a fuller designation picture nearly three months earlier.

Sources:EUR-Lex·European Commission

Mentions:European Commission →EU AI Act →Denmark →Finland →Austria →Belgium →Bulgaria →Croatia →Hungary →Slovakia →Brussels →AI Office →Future of Life Institute →GDPR →ChatGPT →GPAI →

First Reported In

Update #15 · Mistral closes EUR 3bn; Luxembourg buys in

EUR-Lex· 8 Sept 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

AI Act fines land on a stale register

The stale register recorded at the start of August is the baseline the 7 September refresh is measured against.

Occurred 2 Aug 2026

Read story →

This Event

Six states name no AI Act regulator

A company deploying a high-risk system in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary or Slovakia cannot find a domestic authority to notify on the Commission's own list.

Different Perspectives

United States

OFAC gazetted two wind-down licences expiring four days apart and adopted a presumption of denial for new Iran sanctions requests, while the State Department separately sanctioned Kataib Hezbollah and Hezbollah financial networks. Washington is closing legal channels on a published calendar rather than all at once.

United Arab Emirates

Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan met Iran's president in New Delhi, the first known face-to-face since the war began, weeks after cutting all Emirati trade and financial dealings with Iran. Abu Dhabi is running economic pressure and diplomatic contact at the same time.

Houthis

Houthi forces completed the capture of Yemen's Red Sea coast and Mayun island this week, an offensive a Houthi official confirmed alongside Yemeni government officers. The gain locks in the Bab al-Mandeb closure to Saudi crude declared as an embargo on 23 July.

Iran

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei credited Iranian diplomacy backed by military strength for pushing neighbours to negotiate, citing the Oman safe-passage talks, while addressing none of the pipeline strike, the Iraqi dismissals or Saudi restraint directly.

Iraq

Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi sacked two Maysan officials, closed and reopened three Iran border crossings inside three days, and approved a joint inquiry with Tehran into the launch site on his own territory. He is managing a militia network he does not fully control rather than confronting it.

Saudi Arabia

Riyadh's Foreign Ministry confirmed the Petroline strike, named no attacker, and said it would hold off retaliating at Iraq's request while reserving the right to act on its own sovereignty. It expects Baghdad's inquiry, not a Saudi strike, to be the next move.