The Ultimate Guide to the EU AI Act

Introduction

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) established a legal framework for artificial intelligence (AI) within the European Union, introducing both regional and extraterritorial obligations. Enacted by the European Parliament and Council on June 13th, 2024, the regulation seeks to harmonize the internal market while ensuring that AI systems are safe, transparent, and aligned with European values. Its objectives include safeguarding health, safety, and fundamental rights as outlined in the EU Charter, while addressing potential risks to democracy, the rule of law, and environmental sustainability. It further aims to prevent market fragmentation and create uniform standards across member states, ensuring that organizations deploying or developing AI do so responsibly.

When does the EU AI Act take effect, and what are the key compliance deadlines?

The EU AI Act introduces a phased implementation timeline to accommodate the complexity of AI regulation.

The first major milestone occurred on February 2, 2025, when prohibitions under Article 5 became effective. These prohibitions targeted AI systems deemed to pose unacceptable risks, such as those used for subliminal manipulation or social scoring.

The main application date is August 2, 2026, when most provisions — including requirements for high-risk AI systems under Articles 6-15 — become mandatory. This date also covers obligations for general-purpose AI systems and transparency rules for AI-generated or manipulated content such as deepfakes.

A final milestone is on August 2, 2027, applying to high-risk AI systems that were already on the market prior to the Act’s enforcement. Public authorities using high-risk AI systems are granted additional flexibility, with compliance required by August 2, 2030, to accommodate procurement cycles and resource constraints.

This staggered timeline allows organizations to adapt progressively, ensuring alignment with compliance requirements while avoiding disruption to innovation.

Who does the EU AI Act apply to, and how broad is its scope?

The EU AI Act affects entities involved in the development, distribution, and application of AI systems both within and outside the European Union. Its scope spans public and private sectors and extends across industries such as law enforcement, banking, gaming, financial services, and other commercial areas that use biometric or predictive data.

Examples include companies offering crime analytics software to law enforcement, banks using AI for anti-money-laundering checks, gaming firms employing manipulative AI tactics targeting minors, insurance providers engaging in social scoring, and businesses leveraging biometric categorization systems.

The Act’s reach is not limited to traditional providers or deployers. It also covers any organization participating in the AI lifecycle. This broad applicability underscores the need for industry-wide awareness, as even indirect involvement in AI deployment can trigger compliance obligations. Entities must evaluate their operations to determine whether they fall under the Act’s rules, particularly if their technologies could be misused in ways that manipulate or exploit individuals.

What are the key definitions and concepts under the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act provides several key definitions that determine the regulation’s applicability and compliance structure. Understanding these core terms is essential for organizations to accurately assess their compliance responsibilities under the Act.

Providers are responsible for risk management and system design, while deployers must ensure lawful and ethical use.

What is the risk-based classification system in the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act adopts a four-tier, risk-based classification model that determines the level of regulation for each AI system based on potential harm to individuals or society. This classification ensures proportional regulation and helps organizations allocate compliance resources efficiently.

EU AI Act risk tiers

How does the EU AI Act fit into the broader EU regulatory framework?

The EU AI Act aligns closely with existing EU legislation to avoid duplication and ensure consistency across regulatory domains. It connects with Regulation (EU) 2019/881 (Cybersecurity Act), under which high-risk AI systems certified under cybersecurity schemes can presume compliance with related security requirements (Article 42).

It also integrates with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), ensuring compatibility between AI oversight and broader digital governance. By harmonizing with these frameworks, the EU AI Act reduces regulatory overlap and simplifies adherence for organizations operating across multiple EU jurisdictions.

Additionally, the Act reinforces accountability through Directive (EU) 2019/1937, protecting whistleblowers who report non-compliance (Article 87).

What are the main compliance areas organizations must address under the EU AI Act?

Organizations must focus on four key compliance pillars derived from the Act’s main requirements:

1. Risk Management

Continuous evaluation and mitigation of potential risks throughout the AI system lifecycle, as required under Articles 9-15.

2. Data Governance

Ensuring data quality, representativeness, and integrity to prevent bias and maintain accountability.

3. Transparency

Obligations under Article 50 mandate disclosure when interacting with AI, including labeling of AI-generated or manipulated content such as deepfakes.

4. Oversight and Documentation

Maintaining technical documentation (Article 11), risk-management plans, and contributing to the EU-wide database for high-risk systems under Article 71.

These pillars form the foundation of AI governance, ensuring compliance, ethical use, and ongoing accountability across the EU. They also connect directly to later sections on prohibited practices, high-risk AI, general-purpose AI, and enforcement penalties.

How will the EU AI Act change over time?

To remain relevant, the EU AI Act includes provisions for periodic reviews and updates. The first formal review is scheduled for August 2, 2029, followed by subsequent evaluations every four years. These reviews allow the European Commission to assess implementation progress, identify emerging risks, and propose revisions as AI technologies and societal expectations evolve.

Unacceptable AI systems

What constitutes an “unacceptable risk” AI system under EU law, and how does this differ from high-risk AI?

“Unacceptable risk” AI corresponds to the prohibited practices in Title II (Article 5). Title III defines high-risk AI systems as either AI systems that are safety components of products or are themselves products covered by Union harmonization legislation listed in Annex I requiring third-party conformity assessment, or AI systems listed in Annex III. Examples include remote biometric identification for law enforcement, AI-driven critical-infrastructure monitoring, emergency-call triage, credit-scoring, and judicial assistance. Other Annex III AI may be exempt if they can demonstrably show no significant risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights.

How does the EU AI Act restrict the use of subliminal or manipulative AI techniques?

The EU AI Act explicitly bans AI systems that use subliminal manipulation and deceptive techniques under Article 5. This prohibition targets AI designed to influence behavior in ways that bypass an individual’s conscious awareness, potentially causing psychological or physical harm.

What protections does the EU AI Act provide against AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities such as age, disability, or socioeconomic status?

The Act targets AI systems that exploit specific groups like children, the elderly, or people with disabilities, by taking advantage of age, physical or mental limitations to distort behavior. This is deemed unethical because it undermines dignity, fairness and can lead to discrimination or harm. These protections operate alongside broader safeguards for fundamental rights contained across the regulation.

Why are social scoring systems and predictive profiling prohibited under the EU AI Act?

AI systems that assign scores to individuals for general purposes are prohibited when the social score leads to detrimental or unfavorable treatment in unrelated contexts or treatment that is unjustified or disproportionate (Article 5(1)(c)). The Act also bans assessing criminal risk solely on personality profiling (Article 5(1)(d)). However, ratings that average human-provided scores (such as driver ratings) are not in scope unless combined with other restricted uses of information.

The Act bans creating or expanding facial recognition databases through untargeted scraping of facial images (Article 5(1)(e)), biometric categorization for sensitive attributes (Article 5(1)(g)), and emotion recognition in workplaces or schools except for medical or safety reasons (Article 5(1)(f)). It restricts real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces to narrowly defined law-enforcement purposes like locating missing persons, preventing imminent threats, or identifying suspects of serious crimes (Article 5(1)(h)).

Are there any exceptions to the bans on biometric or emotion-recognition systems?

Emotion recognition in employment and educational settings is generally prohibited, with a narrow exception for systems specifically designed and deployed for medical or safety purposes (e.g., detecting driver fatigue to prevent accidents). Real-time remote biometric identification is restricted to targeted law-enforcement uses and requires notification to national market-surveillance authorities, which submit annual reports to the European Commission.

How do organizations verify and document compliance with the EU AI Act’s prohibitions?

Organizations must conduct internal audits, review system logs for prohibited functionalities, and implement corrective measures such as disabling non-compliant features or withdrawing systems. Compliance verification involves technical documentation (Article 11) and conformity-assessment procedures (Article 43), supported by a risk-management system and post-market monitoring proportionate to the system’s nature. These steps complement broader obligations for high-risk systems under Title III and for general-purpose AI models with systemic risk under Title 5.

What enforcement powers do national and EU authorities have over prohibited AI practices?

National competent authorities monitor AI systems entering the market, investigate reported violations, and can demand documentation or testing. They may order withdrawal of systems that employ prohibited techniques. Title VII establishes the European Artificial Intelligence Board and the AI Office to ensure consistent application of the regulation, coordinate national authorities, and support market surveillance, guidance, and recommendations on standards and best-practice frameworks.

High-risk AI systems

What is the definition of a “high-risk AI system” under the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act introduces key definitions that shape regulation and scope, including “provider,” “deployer,” and “risk,” where “risk” refers to the combination of the probability of harm and the severity of that harm. For example, a real-time remote biometric identification system would be classified as a high-risk AI system. These terms create a clear legal framework that determines who must comply with requirements and links high-risk classification to concrete obligations like conformity assessments, transparency, and post-market monitoring. The Regulation does not apply to AI systems used solely for military, defense or national security purposes, to pure research or development activities, or to personal non-professional use.

How does the EU AI Act determine if an AI system falls into the high-risk category?

Title III defines high-risk AI systems as either (1) AI systems that are safety components of products or are themselves products covered by Union harmonization legislation listed in Annex I, requiring third-party conformity assessment, or (2) AI systems listed in Annex III. Examples include remote biometric identification for law enforcement, AI-driven critical-infrastructure monitoring, AI for emergency-call triage, AI for credit-scoring, and AI for judicial assistance. Other Annex III AI may be exempt if they can demonstrably show no significant risk to health, safety, or fundamental rights. However, AI systems used in high-risk use cases listed in Annex III that involve profiling of natural persons are always considered to pose significant risks, regardless of meeting these exemption conditions. Providers must document any assessment demonstrating the system is not high-risk, keep records, and comply with upcoming Commission guidelines slated for 2026.

What technical and safety requirements must high-risk AI systems meet before being placed on the EU market?

The Act mandates strict oversight for high-risk systems, requiring transparency, risk assessments, human oversight, data-quality measures, and user notification. Specifically, high-risk systems must undergo a conformity assessment, bear the CE marking where required, maintain up-to-date technical documentation, provide transparency notices to users, and implement human-oversight measures (see Articles 8-15 and Annex IV). Organizations must document how systems interpret inputs and ensure biases do not lead to discrimination. In practice, these obligations translate into accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity, and transparency controls that are disclosed in pre-market technical filings and reinforced by oversight in deployment.

What is the process for conducting conformity assessments and obtaining CE marking for high-risk AI systems?

A key compliance milestone is readiness for conformity assessments and obtaining CE (Conformité Européenne) marking for high-risk AI systems. These assessments may involve internal checks for some providers, while others may need third-party involvement through notified bodies, depending on the system’s risk profile. Achieving CE marking signifies compliance and serves as a visible assurance of quality and safety to users. Organizations need to compile technical documentation, implement risk-management measures, and ensure transparency to pass these assessments, and starting this preparation early may help avoid delays or market exclusion. Required technical documentation includes items such as a system architecture diagram, a risk-assessment report and a user manual. Typical risk-management measures cover hazard analysis, mitigation plans, post-market monitoring and continuous review. These steps connect pre-market design controls with the post-market monitoring system providers must maintain.

What documentation and record-keeping obligations apply to high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act?

For high-risk AI systems, providers are required to keep the documentation — covering system characteristics, risk management, and compliance measures — accessible to national competent authorities throughout that period (Article 18).

Member States must establish conditions that guarantee accessibility to records, particularly if a provider ceases operations or enters bankruptcy before the ten-year deadline. Providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems must also preserve automatically generated logs for a minimum of six months (Article 19), unless EU or national laws specify otherwise. In AI regulatory sandboxes, logs of personal data processing must be kept for the duration of participation. The Act further mandates that providers establish a quality management system with comprehensive documentation (Article 17), scaling proportionately for micro-enterprises (Article 63). Providers must prepare and maintain an EU declaration of conformity, retained for 10 years after the system enters the market or service (Article 47), containing the information specified in Annex V and translated as required.

How does the EU AI Act require providers to manage risk throughout the AI system lifecycle?

The EU AI Act mandates a lifecycle risk assessment methodology for AI systems, particularly those classified as high-risk, to ensure comprehensive risk management (Articles 9, 10, 11, 14, and 72). Providers must identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks from design and training to deployment and post-market monitoring, produce up-to-date technical documentation (Annex IV), and implement human-oversight measures (Article 14). 

The Act emphasizes proportionate implementation. SMEs have reduced obligations and simplified conformity assessment, while larger organizations follow stricter protocols and notified-body audits.

What continuous monitoring and post-market oversight measures must providers implement for high-risk AI systems?

The EU AI Act requires continuous monitoring and evaluation protocols within risk-management to address new risks in AI deployment, obliging providers and deployers of high-risk systems to implement real-time tracking mechanisms that detect performance issues, adverse impacts, or shifts in risk classification (Article 72). Monitoring collects data on system outputs, user interactions and incident reports to assess whether risks remain within acceptable limits. Evaluation protocols call for periodic reviews, often annually or after significant system updates, to verify the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Providers must maintain logs to ensure transparency for regulators.

Title IX additionally requires providers of high-risk AI systems to report serious incidents to the competent market-surveillance authority:

How must high-risk AI systems be registered in the EU database, and what information must providers disclose?

Title VIII mandates that the European Commission, together with member states, establish and maintain an EU-wide database that records detailed information about high-risk AI systems. Providers, or their authorized representatives, must enter data from Annex VIII sections A and B, while public authorities and Union bodies deploying the systems input data from section C. Most information entered under Article 49 must be publicly available in a user-friendly format, except for restricted sections (Article 49(4)). Data under Article 60 is restricted to market-surveillance authorities and the Commission unless the provider consents. The Commission acts as data controller and must ensure accessibility and data minimization. 

Additionally, providers must register themselves and their systems in the “EU database for high-risk AI systems” before placing systems on the market or into service (Article 71), including mandatory Annex VIII fields such as provider name, address, contact details, system trade name, intended purpose, technical documentation, and related information (Article 71(4)). For sensitive systems related to law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control, registration occurs in a secure, non-public section. Finally, critical-infrastructure systems are registered at the national level, and not at the EU database level.

What human oversight and accountability mechanisms are required for high-risk AI systems?

Human oversight is a cornerstone of the EU AI Act, ensuring that high-risk AI systems are subject to effective monitoring and control by individuals. Oversight must be integrated into system design, allowing a natural person to manage risks and ensure compliance with regulatory provisions (Article 14). Deployers of high-risk systems must assign oversight responsibilities to competent, trained individuals with the authority to execute their duties effectively (Article 26). 

For specific AI systems, a fundamental rights impact assessment is required, detailing oversight measures and other risk mitigation strategies to protect individuals or groups from harm (Article 27). Auditors verify that providers have designed systems with appropriate transparency measures that enable deployers to effectively monitor and manage operations. These accountability measures tie back to the broader risk-management, documentation, and monitoring obligations applicable to high-risk AI.

General Purpose AI systems

What is a General-Purpose AI model under the EU AI Act, and how does it differ from high-risk AI systems?

In contrast to high-risk AI systems identified in Title III, general-purpose AI models (GPAI) are regulated based on their broad applicability and scale, with specific attention to models that present systemic risk.

How does the EU AI Act determine whether a General-Purpose AI model poses a “systemic risk”?

The EU AI Act establishes specific criteria for evaluating systemic risk in General-Purpose AI (GPAI) models, which are AI systems designed for broad applicability across various tasks. Systemic risk refers to the potential for these models to cause widespread harm due to their scale, reach, or influence on critical sectors. The Act requires providers to assess whether their GPAI models exceed certain thresholds that could trigger heightened regulatory scrutiny, with compliance deadlines approaching by August 2, 2026. The evaluation focuses on factors such as the model’s computational power, often measured in floating-point operations (FLOPs), and its user-base size. 

For instance, models surpassing a benchmark of 10^25 FLOPs are automatically considered to pose systemic risk, requiring stricter obligations. Additionally, the assessment considers the potential impact on markets, public safety, or democratic processes. Providers must conduct thorough risk analyses and submit findings to EU authorities to determine if enhanced measures apply. Data processing must also comply with the GDPR and the EU e-Privacy Regulation. These criteria connect directly to whether a model is treated as having systemic risk and therefore subject to additional obligations under Title V.

What are the main obligations for providers of General-Purpose AI models identified as posing systemic risk?

Title 5 of the EU AI Act requires providers of general-purpose AI models that are classified as having systemic risk to follow several strict requirements. They must conduct thorough model evaluations using up-to-date, standardized protocols, including adversarial testing, to uncover and mitigate risks, and continuously assess and address any systemic risks that could arise across the EU, documenting their findings and mitigation steps. Providers must also promptly report serious incidents and corrective actions to the AI Office and relevant national authorities. Finally, they are obligated to maintain strong cybersecurity safeguards for both the model and its supporting infrastructure. These obligations operate alongside the Act’s broader framework, including prohibitions in Title II and transparency duties in Title IV where applicable.

What safeguards and safety guardrails must General-Purpose AI providers implement to mitigate systemic risk?

Under the EU AI Act, GPAI models identified as posing systemic risk must implement well-defined safety guardrails to mitigate potential harm. Safety guardrails include technical constraints like content filters, bias detection mechanisms, and fail-safe protocols to limit harmful outputs. Providers must also establish continuous monitoring to address newer risks and ensure models adhere to ethical standards. These measures require significant resources, including regular audits and updates to align with evolving best practices. Documentation of guardrail effectiveness is mandatory for regulatory reviews, reinforcing accountability under the Act’s framework.

What responsibilities do deployers of General-Purpose AI models have under the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act imposes specific usage restriction protocols on deployers of GPAI models to prevent systemic risks and ensure ethical application. Deployers who integrate or use these models in operational contexts must adhere to guidelines that limit misuse or unintended harm. These protocols are vital for maintaining accountability across the AI supply chain and safeguarding public interest. Adhering to these restrictions helps deployers avoid legal repercussions and supports ethical AI integration. Deployers must also remain mindful of the Act’s prohibited practices in Title II and the high-risk classification rules in Title III when integrating GPAI into downstream systems.

Establishing clear usage boundaries now can prevent costly missteps and enhance operational integrity. These protocols often involve defining acceptable use cases and prohibiting applications that could infringe on rights, such as mass surveillance or discriminatory profiling. Deployers must implement access controls, monitor usage patterns, and report any deviations or adverse incidents to providers or regulators. Training staff on restriction policies and maintaining clear records of compliance efforts are also required to demonstrate adherence to the Act’s expectations in sensitive deployment scenarios.

How must providers verify the effectiveness of safeguards in General-Purpose AI models?

Providers of GPAI models under the EU AI Act must adopt thorough safeguard verification measures to confirm that their systems meet safety and ethical standards. Verification ensures that safeguards like risk mitigation and transparency are not only implemented but also effective in real-world applications, including regular testing and detailed reporting on safeguard performance. Providers must assess whether their models comply with technical and ethical benchmarks, addressing vulnerabilities such as bias or harmful outputs. They are also required to publish summaries of training data and risk assessments to enable regulatory oversight. Continuous updates to verification processes are necessary to adapt to new challenges and maintain alignment with EU guidelines.

What documentation and retention requirements apply to General-Purpose AI providers under the EU AI Act?

For general-purpose AI models, an EU-based authorized representative must retain a copy of all technical documentation must for ten years after a system is placed on the market or put into service (Article 18), and make it available to the AI Office and other relevant bodies (Articles 53 and 54)

Financial institutions subject to EU financial-services law must incorporate this retention obligation into their existing record-keeping frameworks. Member States will establish conditions that guarantee accessibility, particularly if a provider ceases operations or enters bankruptcy before the 10-year deadline. These provisions aim to preserve a traceable compliance history, allowing regulators to assess adherence to safety and rights-protection standards long after deployment.

Fines and penalties under the EU AI Act

What penalties apply to prohibited AI practices and misuse under the EU AI Act?

Prohibited practices include deploying AI systems that manipulate individuals through subliminal techniques, exploit vulnerabilities of specific groups, or create social scoring mechanisms that infringe on fundamental rights (see Article 5). Violations in this category can result in fines of up to €30M or 7% of a company’s annual global turnover, whichever is higher, demonstrating the Act’s strict stance against unethical AI applications. Misuse of AI systems, such as intentionally deploying high-risk systems without proper safeguards or failing to disclose their use when mandated, also carries significant financial consequences, with penalties scaled according to severity and impact.

What are the maximum fine levels for high-risk AI system violations?

For violations related to high-risk AI systems, such as failing to adhere to risk management, data governance, or human oversight requirements, fines can reach up to €15M or 3% of a company’s annual global turnover, whichever is higher (Article 99). These maximum fines apply to providers and, in certain cases, deployers who fail to implement necessary safeguards or report serious incidents within mandated timelines. Authorities determine the exact penalty based on the violation’s scope, duration, and the entity’s level of intent or negligence.

How is retroactive penalty enforcement applied under the EU AI Act?

Under the EU AI Act, market surveillance authorities oversee compliance and can impose penalties retroactively for non-compliance dating back to the start of the enforcement period. This targets violations such as deployment of banned AI systems, including prohibited practices like subliminal manipulation, social scoring, and failures to meet transparency obligations during the Act’s initial implementation phase. Authorities issue enforcement notices and levy penalties, reinforcing consistent application of the regime and addressing harmful AI practices even if they occurred earlier.

What administrative sanctions and corrective actions can authorities impose beyond financial penalties?

Administrative sanctions can include formal warnings, restrictions on the deployment of AI systems, or outright bans on specific applications that fail to meet regulatory standards. Corrective actions require providers or deployers to address identified issues within a specified timeframe, such as updating systems to comply with risk management requirements, enhancing transparency, or retraining models to eliminate biases. Failure to comply can escalate sanctions, including additional fines or market withdrawal of the system.

How does non-compliance affect market access and continued operation in the EU?

Failure to meet the Act’s requirements can lead to the suspension or complete withdrawal of an AI system from the EU market, effectively barring providers from operating within the EU, particularly for high-risk systems that pose significant threats to safety or rights. Beyond market exclusion, non-compliance can damage reputation and disrupt business operations due to corrective mandates or redesigns needed to meet compliance standards.

What appeals and legal recourse options are available for organizations penalized under the EU AI Act?

Organizations can appeal penalties and seek legal recourse through administrative and judicial processes within the relevant member state. National authorities must inform organizations of their right to appeal and the procedures to follow. Appeals may begin with reconsideration by the issuing authority and can escalate to national courts, which review alignment with the Act and principles of proportionality and fairness. Coordination with the European Commission or the EAIB may be required for cross-border issues.

How Hyperproof helps you maintain compliance with the EU AI Act

How can Hyperproof help with the EU AI Act?

Hyperproof is an intelligent GRC platform that helps organizations implement, monitor and maintain the controls required by the EU AI Act in the most efficient way possible. Here are some of the ways Hyperproof can make preparing for the EU AI Act less stressful and more predictable.

Implement controls that conform to the EU AI Act

Hyperproof comes with an out-of-the-box EU AI Act framework template that maps the regulation’s requirements into individual control items organized by the EU AI Act’s chapters. You can activate, edit or remove controls to match your organization’s needs. The platform also lets you attach relevant compliance evidence, such as technical documentation, assessment results, or security reports, to each control so auditors can see exactly how you comply.

Integrate with existing GDPR compliance

Hyperproof aligns EU AI Act requirements with GDPR obligations, allowing you to reuse DPIAs, biometric-data controls and shared security measures across both regimes, reducing duplication of effort.

Document and track AI risks

Treat your EU AI Act compliance as an ongoing regulatory obligation that requires systematic governance. Planning involves securing leadership buy-in, meeting specific documentation and technical requirements under the Act, and defining the scope of every AI system you deploy. Hyperproof’s risk register captures AI-specific risks, maps them to relevant regulatory requirements, and keeps the information up to date as models change.

Conduct internal AI audits efficiently

Set up an internal audit program for your AI governance, data-handling practices and ongoing monitoring obligations required under the Act. All audit evidence, findings and reviewer notes live in Hyperproof, giving you a single source of truth for every inspection.

Take corrective actions (and assign them to the right owners)

When an audit uncovers a non-conformity, Hyperproof turns it into a remediation task, automatically assigns it to the responsible team or individual and sends reminder notifications. Stakeholders can complete their work in the ticketing or project-management tools they already use, while Hyperproof tracks progress and closure status.

Real-time dashboards for leadership

Hyperproof provides customizable dashboards that display overall compliance posture, open gaps and upcoming deadlines. Executives can quickly gauge whether the organization is on track to meet the August 2, 2026, rollout date and report status to regulators or board members.

Manage third-party AI risk

Leverage AI-powered vendor assessments to evaluate third-party AI risks and support your organization’s compliance obligations when using external AI providers. Enhanced continuous control monitoring capabilities, strengthened through the Expent.ai acquisition, keep supplier risk visible and actionable.

Get started becoming compliant with the EU AI Act today

Hyperproof is a comprehensive, end-to-end solution for meeting the EU AI Act’s demanding compliance landscape while keeping day-to-day operations smooth and transparent. To learn more, request a demo.