Commission Guidelines on the scope of the obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models established by Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (C(2025) 7719 final)

Versions

eu-gpai-guidelines: 1 recorded version, oldest first, published by European Commission. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.

1. 2025-11-19 · revisedCommunication C(2025) 7719 final (19 November 2025) (this version)

This version

Provisions in this version · 7 quoted

A limited selection of quoted provisions: what this edition says about thresholds, required actions, who decides and exceptions. It is not a full summary and says nothing about implementation. A “not found” record states which part of the edition was inspected. It is not a claim that the text was deleted.

• Threshold or triggerNo enforcement action in the first year; fines enforced from 2 August 2026; obligations apply from 2 August 2025“In the first year from 2 August 2025 onwards, the Commission cannot take any enforcement actions”Section 5.3, last paragraph, sentence beginning "In the first year"Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Threshold or triggerIndicative criterion for a general-purpose AI model: training compute above 10²³ FLOP and language, text-to-image or text-to-video output“an indicative criterion for a model to be considered a general-purpose AI model is that its training compute is greater than”Paragraph (17)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionProviders outside an adequately assessed code are expected to show compliance by other adequate means and report to the AI Office“Providers of general-purpose AI models that do not adhere to a code of practice that is assessed as adequate are expected to demonstrate how they comply with their obligations under Chapter V of the AI Act via other adequate means”Paragraph (92), first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionA systemic-risk notification may be due before training is complete; estimate training compute before the pre-training run“a notification may be required before training is complete, if the provider can reasonably foresee that the requirement that leads to the presumption of the model having high-impact capabilities is reasonably likely to be met”Paragraph (30), first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesFor adherents to an adequately assessed code, enforcement focuses on monitoring adherence“the Commission will focus its enforcement activities on monitoring their adherence to the code of practice.”Decides: Commission (focus of enforcement activities)Paragraph (91), fourth sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesCommitments implemented in line with an adequately assessed code may be a mitigating factor for fines“The Commission may take into account commitments implemented in line with a code of practice that is assessed as adequate as a mitigating factor when fixing the amount of fines, depending on the specific circumstances (Article 101(1) AI Act).”Decides: Commission (amount of fines)Paragraph (93)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesGuidelines are not binding; the CJEU gives authoritative interpretation; the Commission bases enforcement on them“These guidelines are not binding for providers of general-purpose AI models; an authoritative interpretation of the AI Act may only be given by the Court of Justice of the European Union”Decides: Court of Justice of the European Union (authoritative interpretation of the AI Act)Paragraph (9), first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗

Earliest version recorded here; no replacement is recorded.

Issue and authorship records

• Issued by: European CommissionThe Commission Guidelines on the scope of the obligations for providers of general-purpose AI models, in the file that the Commission serves at its download address, are a Communication from the Commission dated Brussels 19 November 2025 and numbered C(2025) 7719 final.2025-11-19 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗European Commission: records →

Documentary relations

Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.

Not recorded for this document: cites · cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.