EU AI Act Enforcement Hampered By Lack of Funding, Expertise

Struggles with funding and retaining expertise will pose enforcement challenges for the EU AI Act, European Parliament digital policy advisor Kai Zenner said Friday.

“Most member states are almost broke,” Zenner, who advises member of the European Parliament Axel Voss, said at a conference hosted by George Washington University. Countries already struggling to fund their data protection agencies are also losing the technical talent they need to regulate AI to tech companies who can pay exponentially more, he said.

“This combination of lack of capital finance and also lack of talent will be really one of the main challenges of enforcing the AI Act,” he said. “They need some experts, some real experts, in order to understand what companies are telling them.”

Special Report Download: Corporate Legal Teams Take On World’s Broadest AI Framework

Member states have until Aug. 2, 2025 to designate which national authorities will oversee the applications of the AI rules.

The act, which went into effect in August 2024 is the first comprehensive legal framework in the world to regulate development, deployment, and use of AI in the European Union. The act will also have an enormous impact on US companies who operate in the EU.

Zenner expressed doubt that member states facing serious budget crises will choose to invest in AI regulation over public services. They may instead chose to invest in AI innovation that could spur economic growth, he told Bloomberg Law.

Even economically sound members, however, may be reluctant to spend on compliance.

He said member states are investing heavily in AI companies with economic progress “and you don’t want to enforce against that.”

The European Commission is facing the same scramble for talent necessary to implement the act, Zenner said. He projected it would take at least “two to three” years for authorities to build up the capacity to regulate.

Zenner, who helped write parts of the draft of the EU AI Act, said he was disappointed in the final version.

“It’s vague; It’s contradicting itself,” he said. “The jury is really still out if it’s, in the end working, if it’s not hampering innovation.”