European Commission Misses Key AI Act Deadline, Sparking Industry Uncertainty

The European Commission has failed to meet the February 2, 2026, deadline for publishing critical guidance on high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act. This delay regarding Article 6 guidance—which defines the criteria for high-risk classification and compliance—has intensified concerns among businesses and developers as the August enforcement deadline approaches. At Creati.ai, we are closely monitoring these regulatory shifts to help our community navigate the evolving compliance landscape.

The Missing Article 6 Guidance

The delayed guidance is a cornerstone of the AI Act’s implementation framework. It was intended to provide legal certainty on how to determine if an AI application qualifies as "high-risk," a classification that triggers stringent documentation, transparency, and post-market monitoring obligations.

According to reports, the Commission is currently integrating months of feedback into the guidelines. While a final draft was initially expected by the February 2 deadline, officials now indicate that the text may be released for further feedback by the end of this month, with final adoption potentially sliding to March or April.

Renate Nikolay, Deputy Director-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology at the European Commission, acknowledged the gap in readiness during a recent European Parliament hearing. She stated that standards are not yet ready, necessitating more time to ensure the legal certainty required for the sector and innovators.

The "Digital Omnibus" Proposal and Potential Delays

In response to the readiness gap, the Commission is reportedly considering a "Digital Omnibus" package. This proposal aims to simplify the definition of high-risk AI uses and could potentially push back the entry into force of high-risk rules by up to 16 months.

This potential pivot represents a significant shift from the Commission's previous stance, which promised firm adherence to the original timeline. The delay is partly attributed to the failure of standardization bodies—specifically the European Electrotechnical Committee for Standardization and the European Committee for Standardization—to meet their Fall 2025 deadline for developing technical standards. These bodies are now targeting late 2026 for completion.

Impact on the AI Industry

For AI providers and enterprises, this regulatory limbo creates substantial operational challenges. Companies are currently "scrambling" to understand whether the August 2026 enforcement date will stand or be superseded by the Omnibus proposal.

Laura Caroli, an AI Act negotiator, warned that this uncertainty undermines confidence in the Act itself. The lack of clarity on Article 6 makes it difficult for organizations to finalize their compliance strategies, particularly for systems that might straddle the line between limited and high risk. Industry stakeholders, including the Chamber of Progress, have argued that policymakers should grant companies the same "breathing room" they are affording themselves.

Timeline Comparison: Current vs. Proposed

The following table outlines the shifting landscape of EU AI Act milestones based on recent developments:

Navigating the Uncertainty

The situation highlights the complexity of regulating rapidly evolving technologies. While the delay offers a potential reprieve for companies struggling to meet the August deadline, the ambiguity regarding the "Digital Omnibus" package introduces new risks. If the Omnibus proposal fails to pass or undergoes significant changes, organizations could face the original August deadline without the necessary guidance or standards in place.

For AI developers and deployers, the prudent course of action remains to prepare for the strictest interpretation of the rules while maintaining flexibility to adapt to the delayed timeline. We recommend focusing on robust internal governance and documentation practices that will likely be required regardless of the specific enforcement date.

Strategic Implications for High-Risk Systems

The classification of high-risk systems is not merely a legal technicality; it dictates the market access for AI products in the EU. The missing guidance was expected to clarify nuances in Article 6, particularly regarding exceptions for AI systems that do not pose a significant risk of harm to health, safety, or fundamental rights.

Without this guidance, developers face a binary risk: over-compliance, which incurs unnecessary costs and slows innovation, or under-compliance, which risks significant penalties once enforcement begins. The Commission's struggle to finalize these rules underscores the tension between fostering innovation and ensuring safety—a balance that remains delicate as the technology advances.

As the situation develops, the industry awaits the final draft of the guidelines later this month. The reception of this draft will likely determine whether the Commission proceeds with the Digital Omnibus delay or attempts to rush the original timeline, a decision that will shape the European AI market for years to come.