The EU AI Act brings long-awaited clarity to an area that has been difficult for many organizations to understand: the legal roles and responsibilities when using artificial intelligence. The increasing integration of AI systems into business processes not only increases the benefits, but also the regulatory responsibility. One of the key questions that companies must now ask themselves is: What role do we actually play? The answer to this question is crucial, as it directly defines the legal obligations and liability risks.
In principle, the EU AI Act distinguishes between two main roles: the provider and the deployer. This distinction is by no means merely theoretical. It has a concrete impact on the organizational, technical and legal measures that need to be taken.
Providers of AI systems are organizations that develop AI systems or significantly modify existing systems in such a way that their function or risk profile changes. This role is associated with far-reaching obligations. Providers must establish a comprehensive risk management system that systematically identifies and minimizes potential risks to health, safety and fundamental rights. In addition, there are extensive technical documentation obligations to enable authorities to verify the conformity of the system. Conformity assessments are also required for high-risk AI, which often go hand in hand with CE marking. These requirements presuppose a high degree of organizational maturity and technical expertise.
In practice, however, significantly more companies take on the role of deployer. Deployers use AI systems in a professional or business context without acting as developers themselves. Examples include the use of AI-supported recruiting tools, automated credit decisions or intelligent analysis systems. This role is by no means free of obligations either. Deployers must comply with the provider’s instructions, especially with regard to the intended use. They must ensure that effective human oversight is in place and that employees are sufficiently trained to critically scrutinize AI results.
The Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment, or FRIA for short, is particularly important for high-risk AI. Deployers are obliged to check and document what impact the use of an AI system may have on fundamental rights, such as protection against discrimination or privacy. This assessment is not a one-off act, but should be updated on an ongoing basis, particularly in the event of changes to the context of use or the database.
What many organizations still underestimate is the fact that AI compliance is not just an IT or legal project. It is a classic governance issue. Without clearly defined responsibilities at management level, without binding processes and without specialized roles for AI governance, it will hardly be possible to meet the requirements of the EU AI Act in the long term. The interplay of strategy, organization and control is crucial. Managers need to understand which AI systems are used in the company, for what purpose and at what risk. Employees need to know what they are allowed to do, what they must do and where they can address uncertainties.
The financial risks of non-compliance are considerable. The EU AI Act provides for fines of up to 35 million euros or up to seven percent of annual global turnover, whichever is higher. This dimension makes it clear that AI compliance is not an optional nice-to-have, but a business-critical issue. In addition to direct financial sanctions, there is also the threat of reputational damage and loss of trust among customers, business partners and supervisory authorities.
At the same time, clear rules and defined roles should not be seen as an obstacle to innovation. On the contrary: they create the necessary security to use AI in a scalable and responsible manner. Companies that invest in clean structures, transparent processes and clear responsibilities at an early stage gain a competitive advantage. They can introduce new AI applications more quickly because legal and organizational issues have already been clarified.
A key success factor is therefore an honest inventory. Which AI systems are in use today? Who selected, adapted or integrated them? Which data is used and which decisions are supported or automated? On this basis, it can be clearly determined whether a role as provider, deployer or possibly both exists. This in turn results in concrete to-dos for compliance, governance and risk management.
The EU AI Act not only forces organizations to comply with new rules, but also to be clearer about how they deal with artificial intelligence. Those who seize this opportunity will create trust and future viability. Clear roles and responsibilities are not an end in themselves, but the foundation for a sustainable and legally compliant use of AI.
If you need support in classifying your role, setting up AI governance or in the practical implementation of the requirements of the EU AI Act, please contact Syngenity® GmbH at info@syngenity.com.
