{"id":2131,"date":"2026-10-26T10:37:09","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T10:37:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/simoninstitute.ch\/?p=2131"},"modified":"2026-10-26T15:51:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T15:51:05","slug":"the-eu-ai-act-explained-a-conversation-with-professor-christoph-winter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/simoninstitute.ch\/blog\/post\/the-eu-ai-act-explained-a-conversation-with-professor-christoph-winter","title":{"rendered":"The EU AI Act Explained: A Conversation with Professor Christoph Winter"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Simon Institute (SI) is publishing periodic conversations with leading legal and policy experts to explore how different countries and regions are navigating the governance of AI, and how emerging domestic practices might inform international AI cooperation. Our first conversation<\/a> was with Professor Zhang Linghan on China\u2019s approach to AI governance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the second installment of our series, SI spoke with Professor Christoph Winter about the European Union\u2019s AI Act and the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, and what they mean for AI providers outside the EU. Winter is Assistant Professor of Law and AI at the University of Cambridge, where he directs the Cambridge Programme on AI Science & Policy (CASP). He also co-founded and directs the Institute for Law & AI (LawAI). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He served as legal advisor to the Chairs and the European AI Office on drafting the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, which sets out how providers of the most advanced AI models can comply with the AI Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key takeaways include:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Enforcement of the AI Act has started, with stronger interventions expected.<\/strong> The Commission has sent requests for information to more than 30 providers and received serious incident reports following recent incidents in which AI models reportedly escaped their testing environments. Winter thinks that, depending on how providers respond, fines are likely and requirements to withdraw models from the EU market could follow in some cases.
    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The Act applies to providers placing general-purpose AI models on the EU market, wherever they are based.<\/strong> Providers outside the EU must generally appoint an authorized representative in the Union. Providers of the most capable models face additional obligations to assess and mitigate systemic risks and report serious incidents. Whether these obligations cover internally deployed models is legally unsettled, but Winter advises providers to assume they do.
    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. The Code of Practice is technically voluntary but serves as the key benchmark for compliance.<\/strong> Although providers can demonstrate compliance in other ways, non-signatories may nevertheless be expected to show how their measures compare with the Code. With harmonized standards some years away, Winter expects the Code to remain the main compliance route for the coming years, and notes it can evolve in line with technical developments.
    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Limited regulatory capacity and political pressure could test enforcement.<\/strong> Winter argues that, despite recent hiring efforts, the AI Office still needs significantly more technical and legal expertise. Enforcement could face resistance from foreign governments seeking to protect their companies, though Winter points out that the obligations fall on companies, many of which have strong incentives to keep offering their models in the EU. 
    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. The AI Act is only one component of European AI sovereignty.<\/strong> Winter sees the Act as a robust foundation for addressing frontier AI risks, but argues that Europe also needs reliable access to advanced AI capabilities, defensive tools, and more resilient infrastructure. The EU\u2019s delayed access to Anthropic\u2019s Mythos, with its cybersecurity agency only gaining access to an older version months after launch, illustrates the challenges of relying on foreign providers to assess and respond to emerging threats.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The views expressed are those of the interviewee and do not reflect the official policy or position of SI. This publication is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n