AI rules are splitting
Europe is delaying key parts of its AI Act, creating loopholes that let some high‑risk systems avoid immediate oversight. (techpolicy.press) At the same time, U.S. actors are moving in different directions—California’s governor ordered independent risk reviews for AI in government contracts while the industry braces for heightened federal scrutiny ahead of the 2026 midterms. (washingtonpost.com) (abcnews.com) Analysts warn the European delay could open a “vulnerability window” as North America and Asia push faster on advanced AI hardware and deployments. (digitimes.com)
In late March, European lawmakers voted to push back the start dates for the strictest parts of the bloc’s new AI law, giving companies more time before they must comply with the rules that would force checks on systems used in policing, hiring, healthcare and other sensitive areas. (complianceradar.dev) (computerworld.com) In the United States, California’s governor issued an executive order at the end of March directing the state to require stronger safety and privacy measures from AI vendors bidding on government contracts and to run independent risk reviews of suppliers’ federal supply‑chain risk labels on behalf of the state. (gov.ca.gov) (washingtonpost.com) The EU changes target what regulators call “high‑risk” systems — that is, software used in critical decisions such as who gets a job, who’s subjected to police checks, or medical diagnostics — and delay obligations like mandatory conformity checks (formal reviews that a product meets legal safety and technical standards) and sectoral clarifications that regulators said need matching technical standards. (complianceradar.dev) (euractiv.com) Analysts warn the delay opens a short-term “vulnerability window”: while Brussels waits for standards and guidance, companies in North America and Asia are accelerating new AI hardware and model deployments, potentially putting powerful systems into operation without the EU’s planned oversight; regulators also missed earlier guidance deadlines, which officials cite as a reason for the pause. (digitimes.com) (iapp.org) (politico.eu) The political context inside Europe is concrete: the parliamentary position on the amendment passed with a decisive majority and set new fixed application dates (for example, some obligations moved into late 2027), but the Council of the European Union still must sign off before the changes become final. (complianceradar.dev) (politico.eu) (cio.com) That political divergence matters for the marketplace: California’s order (March 30, 2026) and growing federal attention come as AI industry groups and competing political action committees are already pouring tens of millions into the 2026 midterms to shape who writes national rules, a dynamic that firms say will determine whether the U.S. ends up with stricter federal controls or a looser, industry‑friendly set of standards. (gov.ca.gov) (abcnews.com) (nbcnews.com)
