EU AI fine procedures are getting their missing operating rules. On 12 October 2026 the European Commission published a draft implementing regulation (reference Ares(2026)9589403) that fills in two practical details under Articles 75c and 75d of the AI Act: how the five-year limitation period for fining certain AI systems is counted, and how much of the case file an investigated company may see. The draft is open for public feedback until 11:59 p.m. Brussels time on 9 November 2026, with adoption planned for the fourth quarter of 2026. It is still only a draft — its first page states that it has not been adopted or endorsed by the Commission and reflects the preliminary views of its services — but the direction is already concrete: in these cases, time works in the regulator's favour.
Only two kinds of systems: same-provider model systems and AI inside very large platforms
The Commission's exclusive competence under Article 75(1) covers just two categories: AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model where the model and the system were developed by the same provider or by providers in the same undertaking, and AI systems that constitute or are integrated into very large online platforms or very large online search engines designated under the Digital Services Act. The obligations fall on the providers of such systems, and on deployers that are themselves the provider or belong to the same undertaking. An ordinary business that merely calls a third-party chatbot does not come under the Commission's direct supervision for that use; member-state rules still govern it. This is also a different track from the EU AI Act's first enforcement step announced on 14 October 2026: those information requests targeted the systemic-risk duties of general-purpose model providers, while this draft concerns platform and same-provider systems, with different subjects and different articles.
Six investigative steps can restart the five-year clock, capped at ten years
Article 4 of the draft requires fining and periodic-penalty decisions to be taken within a five-year limitation period; where non-compliance is continuing or repeated, the five years only start running on the day the conduct ceases. Any one of six actions during an investigation interrupts the period and starts it afresh: requests for documentation, explanations or other information; requests for access to conduct system evaluations; inspections; invitations to a structured dialogue; the opening of proceedings; and their re-opening. A request for information sent in year four therefore turns the clock back to zero. The absolute ceiling is twice the period — ten years — after which an unimposed fine expires; but the period is suspended while a case is pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union or while an on-site inspection awaits judicial authorisation, and that suspended time is added on top of the ten-year cap. Enforcement after a decision has its own five years, running from the day the decision becomes final, and a decision varying the amount or any step taken to enforce payment restarts it. The draft does not change the fine amounts themselves — up to EUR 35 million or 7% of worldwide turnover for prohibited practices, EUR 15 million or 3% for other infringements, and EUR 7.5 million or 1% for inaccurate or misleading information are the AI Act's existing ceilings; what changes is how long those ceilings can follow a company.
The file is not open on demand: the unredacted version goes only to outside advisers
Articles 2 and 3 of the draft also set the terms of the defence. An investigated operator gets no access to the file before the Commission notifies its preliminary findings; afterwards it receives a version redacted to protect business secrets. The full, unredacted file is disclosed only to a limited number of specified external legal and economic counsel and external technical experts whose names must be communicated to the Commission in advance — the addressee's own employees and in-house lawyers cannot read it directly. If one of those external advisers joins the addressee or another undertaking active on the same markets during the investigation or within three years after it ends, both sides must inform the Commission and the adviser must assure that they no longer have access to the material. Parties submitting documents must identify the business secrets in each one and provide non-confidential versions, and where the Commission intends to disclose information claimed to be confidential, it allows at least one week for objections. In practice, the defence in such a case runs through an outside team from day one, while the people inside the company who know the system best cannot see the complete evidence.
Three things affected companies should do before the consultation closes
First, check whether you are in scope: inventory whether any of your systems fall into the two categories — a system built on your own general-purpose model, or an AI feature integrated into an EU-designated very large platform or search engine. If you are in scope, prepare for a Commission-run case; if not, prepare under your member state's procedure, and do not confuse the two tracks. Second, keep a clock register for every regulatory contact: log the date of each information request, evaluation access, inspection and opening of proceedings, because each one can restart the five years; measure your latest exposure from the original conduct plus ten years, not on the assumption that risk ends after five. Third, line up external counsel and confidentiality grading in advance: the unredacted file is visible only to outside advisers, so finding them mid-case burns defence time, and marking business secrets and preparing non-confidential versions of submissions should be a standing routine when the objection window is about a week. One last caution: this procedure applies only to the Commission's direct-supervision track, not to every AI fine in the EU — applying it to a member-state enforcement case would miscalculate the deadlines just as badly.
