Since 2 August 2026 the European Commission, acting through its AI Office, can fine providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models up to 3% of worldwide annual turnover or EUR 15 million, whichever is higher. The obligations themselves have applied since August 2025; what starts now is AI Act GPAI enforcement, and with it the copyright policy and the public training content summary become sanctionable. For rights holders, that is a new regulatory lever to use alongside copyright claims.
Key takeaways
- Article 101 fines apply from 2 August 2026; models already on the market before 2 August 2025 have until 2 August 2027 to comply.
- The AI Office can request documents, evaluate models, order corrective measures and, ultimately, fine.
- It checks whether a copyright policy and a training summary exist and are adequate, not whether each work was used lawfully.
- Signatories of the GPAI Code of Practice must offer rights holders a point of contact and a complaints mechanism.
What changed on 2 August 2026?
Under Article 113 of the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), Chapter V on GPAI models applied from 2 August 2025 “with the exception of Article 101”, the fines provision. That exception fell away on the Act’s general date of application, 2 August 2026. As Wilson Sonsini noted on 3 August 2026, the AI Office has now become “formally entitled” to investigate and enforce; until then it had relied on technical dialogues with providers. The Digital Omnibus on AI, in force since 27 July, did not move these dates.
The Commission’s Q&A on GPAI models sums up the toolkit:
| Power | Article | What it allows |
|---|---|---|
| Request information | 91 | Obtain the Article 53 documentation or other information, after an optional structured dialogue |
| Evaluate the model | 92 | Assess compliance where information is insufficient, including access through APIs or source code |
| Request measures | 93 | Order compliance with Articles 53 and 54, or restrict, withdraw or recall the model |
| Fine | 101 | Up to 3% of worldwide turnover or EUR 15 million, whichever is higher, for intentional or negligent breaches |
Which AI Act GPAI obligations are now under scrutiny?
Article 53(1) requires every GPAI provider to keep technical documentation for the AI Office, inform downstream providers, put in place a policy to comply with EU copyright law and publish a sufficiently detailed summary of training content. The two IP duties work as follows:
- Copyright policy (Article 53(1)(c)): the provider must identify and respect text and data mining opt-outs under Article 4(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/790, “including through state-of-the-art technologies”. Recital 106 applies this wherever the training took place.
- Training summary (Article 53(1)(d)): a public document following the AI Office template of 24 July 2025. Recital 107 says it should help copyright holders exercise their rights, for example by listing the main datasets used.
The GPAI Code of Practice (10 July 2025) translates the copyright duty into concrete commitments: crawlers that follow robots.txt, no circumvention of paywalls, safeguards against infringing outputs, and a point of contact and complaints mechanism for rights holders. Signatories rely on it to show compliance, so a provider that departs from its own commitments has a harder case to make.
What the AI Office will not do for rights holders
Recital 108 is explicit: the AI Office monitors whether the provider has a policy and a summary, “without verifying or proceeding to a work-by-work assessment” of the training data, and the Act does not affect copyright enforcement. The AI Act gives no dedicated complaint route to rights holders; Article 89(2) grants one to downstream providers. Infringement claims therefore still go to national courts. What changes is the evidence and leverage available: a deficient summary or a policy that ignores opt-outs is now a regulatory breach that can be fined.
What this means for your business
- If you own content, make your opt-outs machine-readable (robots.txt and other recognised protocols), date them and keep records.
- Read the training summaries and published copyright policies of the models that matter to your sector, and note gaps.
- Use the signatory’s complaints mechanism with precise, substantiated complaints; keep copies for later proceedings.
- If you provide a GPAI model, including from Latin America, review your summary and policy now: Article 101 also covers incorrect or misleading information supplied to the Commission.
Our team for AI training data and digital asset protection can audit opt-outs and summaries, and our copyright and digital works practice handles licensing and infringement strategy.
When to bring in an adviser
- Opt-outs written in terms of service only, which crawlers may not read as machine-readable reservations.
- Complaints too vague to oblige the provider to act; the Code only requires action on sufficiently precise and substantiated complaints.
- Choosing between regulatory pressure, licensing talks and litigation without a common strategy across countries.
- AI providers treating the training summary as marketing copy rather than a document the Commission can test.
Frequently asked questions
Since when can the AI Office fine GPAI providers?
Since 2 August 2026. GPAI obligations have applied since 2 August 2025, but Article 113 deferred the Commission’s fining power under Article 101 to the AI Act’s general date of application. Fines reach 3% of worldwide turnover or EUR 15 million, whichever is higher. Models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 have until 2 August 2027.
Can a rights holder file a complaint with the AI Office?
The AI Act grants a formal complaint right to downstream providers, not to rights holders. Rights holders can use the complaints mechanisms that Code of Practice signatories must offer, send substantiated information to the authorities and bring copyright claims before national courts, which the AI Act leaves unaffected.
Can IP Global Guard help rights holders act on AI training?
Yes. We audit your opt-outs, review providers’ training summaries and copyright policies, prepare complaints and licensing proposals, and coordinate enforcement in Europe, Latin America and Africa through qualified local counsel, with AI Act regulatory input from within the same group and a single point of contact.
How IP Global Guard can help in the enforcement phase
From 2 August, the copyright side of the AI Act has teeth. IP Global Guard, the IP services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, combines copyright, AI and licensing work with one strategy and one billing relationship across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa.
Tell us which content you want to protect, which AI models concern you and in which countries you operate. We will check your opt-outs, read the relevant summaries and propose the next step, from a licence to a complaint. Get in touch with our AI and copyright team.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects the position at its date of publication.
Sources
- EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), OJ L, 12 July 2024
- Wilson Sonsini Data Advisor, EU AI Act enforcement phase begins (3 August 2026)
- European Commission, General-purpose AI models in the AI Act: questions and answers (updated 9 September 2025)
- European Commission, The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (published 10 July 2025)
- European Commission, Explanatory notice and template for the public summary of training content (24 July 2025)
