Why the EU AI Act does not start to affect companies in 2026 – but now
The EU AI Act becomes generally applicable on 2 August 2026.
That statement is legally correct.
And strategically misleading.
Organizations that treat 2026 as the starting point for AI governance misunderstand not only the regulation, but the already existing reality of decision responsibility, organizational duty, and liability exposure.
The AI Governance Gap is not a legal gap.
It is a time gap between today’s decisions and tomorrow’s accountability.
Why 2026 Is Not the Starting Point
The EU AI Act does not create a single “go-live” moment for governance.
It introduces a staggered application logic that activates obligations well before 2026:
- 2 February 2025
Definitions and prohibited practices (Chapters I–II) apply - 2 August 2025
Selected governance and supervisory provisions apply - 2 August 2026
Full operational obligations apply, particularly for high-risk AI systems - 2 August 2027
Extended transition for certain high-risk AI systems embedded in regulated products (e.g. medical devices)
Enforcement culminates in 2026.
Governance relevance does not.
2026 is not the beginning of governance.
It is the point of full enforceability and sanctionability.Governance capability must exist before enforcement begins.
The Decision Threshold Where Governance Begins
My position is explicit – and structurally confirmed by the EU AI Act:
AI governance begins the moment decisions can no longer be delegated.
In practice, this threshold is crossed when AI systems:
- influence legal, financial, or human outcomes
- affect access, eligibility, scoring, prioritization, or automation
- operate at scale without continuous human intervention
That threshold has already been crossed in most organizations.
AI is therefore:
- not a tooling issue
- not an IT issue
- not a compliance side topic
AI is a decision authority, risk, and liability issue at board and executive level.
Organizations fail not because rules are missing, but because no one owns the decision.
What the EU AI Act Really Changes
The EU AI Act systematically shifts responsibility upward:
- Deployers remain responsible, regardless of automation level or vendor
- Legacy high-risk AI systems remain lawful, but fall under the Act once materially modified after 2 August 2026 (Art. 111)
- Risk management, human oversight, and governance structures become mandatory
- Maximum fines up to EUR 35 million or 7% of global annual turnover apply to prohibited practices
- Fines up to EUR 15 million or 3% of global annual turnover apply to other serious infringements
- Market restrictions, usage bans, and operational shutdowns are realistic enforcement tools
- Reputational damage and board-level liability exposure become foreseeable consequences
The Act clearly distinguishes between:
- legal applicability, and
- organizational capability to decide, control, and evidence governance
That capability does not appear automatically in 2026.
The Board-Level Misconception
“We’ll deal with it once it applies.”
This logic fails for AI.
Why?
Because governance capability cannot be retrofitted under pressure.
Between now and August 2026, organizations will make:
- investment decisions
- system and product approvals
- HR, scoring, and performance decisions
- automation choices in core processes
- strategic steering decisions
Every one of these decisions creates future governance and liability relevance.
Delay does not reduce exposure.
It compounds it.
The AI Governance Gap Explained
The AI Governance Gap is the gap between:
- today
fragmented, opportunistic, tool-driven AI deployment - tomorrow
demonstrable, controllable, accountable AI governance
At its core, this is not just a timing issue.
It is a coherence deficit.
Boards are increasingly expected to articulate a 24–36-month AI governance logic that integrates:
- regulatory obligations
- risk appetite
- capability development
- strategic intent
Boards that cannot do this today have a navigation deficit – and therefore a governance deficit.
Typical symptoms:
- no complete AI inventory
- no consistent risk classification
- decisions passed along instead of owned
- boards that are not decision-ready
- responsibility distributed, but not accountable
This is not a compliance problem.
It is a leadership problem.
What Must Be Non-Delegable Today
As of now, boards and executive management must personally own:
- decisions on AI use in critical processes
- definition of organizational risk appetite
- stop, override, and shutdown criteria
- clarity on who can switch systems off
What must be built now:
- explicit board-level responsibility for AI
- full transparency over all AI systems in use
- interim governance structures (roles, approvals, escalation paths)
- AI literacy at decision-maker level
Not as a project.
As a permanent leadership responsibility.
Why I State This So Clearly
My work begins exactly where delegation ends.
I operate at the intersection of regulation, technology, and personal accountability – enabling decision-making when decisions can no longer be passed on.
The EU AI Act is not an innovation barrier.
It is a leadership stress test.
Conclusion
2 August 2026 is not a starting point.
It is the moment when failures become visible, auditable, and sanctionable.
Organizations that wait will govern under pressure.
Organizations that start now will decide with sovereignty.
The AI Governance Gap is the Time Gap.
And that time is running now.
Board Question
👉 Is your board already able to consciously decide on AI deployment –
or is the decision still being delegated?