EU AI Act & ISO 42001 Compliance. Prove your AI is governed.

It can. The Act reaches providers and deployers whose AI output is used in the EU, regardless of where the company sits. If you serve EU customers or your systems touch the EU market, you should assume it applies and classify accordingly. We confirm scope at the start of the engagement.

ISO 42001 is a recognized AI management system standard that demonstrates responsible AI in a structured, auditable way. The Act is the legal obligation, and ISO 42001 is the operating system most teams use to meet and evidence it. Running them together gives you both the compliance position and a certification you can show.

High-risk uses include AI in hiring and worker management, credit and essential services, education, critical infrastructure, law enforcement, and biometric identification. These carry obligations for risk management, data governance, technical documentation, human oversight, accuracy, and conformity assessment. The classification is the first thing we establish for each system.

Responsibility is shared along the chain. Model providers carry their own obligations, and you remain the deployer of the systems you put into use. We map who owns what for each system, so the duties that fall to you are clear and covered from the start.

It depends on the size of your AI estate and how much governance exists today. Inventory and classification produce an early, usable picture, then gap closure and evidence follow. If you have an August 2026 obligation in view, we work back from it and prioritize the high-risk systems first. Timelines are confirmed at scoping.

Compliance is the regulatory layer of AI Governance. The inventory and classification feed the governance program, and the runtime guardrails from AI Governance generate evidence the compliance program uses. We run them as one operation so the same work serves the regulator, the auditor, and the security team.

The Act provides for fines up to a percentage of global annual turnover, tiered by the severity of the violation, with prohibited-practice violations at the top. The readiness program is designed so you never test those tiers.

Inventory your AI systems, classify each against the risk tiers, and put governance around the high-risk ones. Obligations phase in on a published timeline, and discovery is the step that everything else waits on.

Mostly no. Compliance is primarily inventory, classification, documentation, and controls. Where you run AI Governance with us, the same living inventory produces the Act's documentation as a byproduct.

Identify builds the system inventory, Guard implements the required controls, Implement keeps the documentation current, and Enhance turns it into Board and regulator evidence.