- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Neil Hodge2023-06-29T12:09:00
Compliance functions are largely unprepared for the European Union’s AI Act, with many still unaware of what artificial intelligence their organizations are using or the risks the technology poses to their business, according to experts.
The legislation, which applies throughout the European Union but also has extraterritorial effect, is due to be finalized by the end of the year and come into force by 2027. Companies breaching the rules could face fines up to 6 percent of global turnover or 30 million euros (U.S. $33 million)—whichever is higher.
Chris Eastham, a technology partner at law firm Fieldfisher, said compliance functions “do not yet have a full enough grasp of their AI risk exposure,” while governance measures are “piecemeal or nonexistent” in most businesses.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
The European Union’s landmark legal framework to regulate artificial intelligence received political agreement, moving one step closer to official adoption.
Companies need to be aware of the legal risks and liabilities associated with their use of AI-based technologies, as technology firms are not the only ones in regulators’ sights, a panel of experts discussed at Compliance Week’s Europe conference in London.
Not all companies can rely on bans or restrictions to employee use of generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT. Instead of telling people what they can’t do, focus on what they can do.
Any product that uses AI needs to be safety assessed for its entire lifespan under new rules that went into effect recently across the EU. Experts warned companies using AI to tailor products could be classed as “manufacturers” and face the same duty of care as developed.
When lawmakers slam the U.K.’s chief financial regulator as “incompetent,” it not only opens the doors for others to pile criticism on it, but it sparks a debate about how the organization can be improved–or removed.
The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority apologized to investors in peer-to-peer investment firm Collateral for not acting swiftly enough to prevent Collateral from defrauding its customers.
