Skip to content
AI Act Recital 84 EN
LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this law. Contains: the full text of every article, recital and provision of this law. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

Recital 84 — Third parties becoming high-risk AI providers

In force — consolidated2026-07-27 · CELEX 02024R1689-20260727 · ELI ↗
Version history 2
  • 2026-07-27in force CELEX 02024R1689-20260727
  • 2024-07-12 CELEX 02024R1689-20240712

To ensure legal certainty, it is necessary to clarify that, under certain specific conditions, any distributor, importer, deployer or other third-party should be considered to be a provider of a high-risk AI system and therefore assume all the relevant obligations. This would be the case if that party puts its name or trademark on a high-risk AI system already placed on the market or put into service, without prejudice to contractual arrangements stipulating that the obligations are allocated otherwise. This would also be the case if that party makes a substantial modification to a high-risk AI system that has already been placed on the market or has already been put into service in a way that it remains a high-risk AI system in accordance with this Regulation, or if it modifies the intended purpose of an AI system, including a general-purpose AI system, which has not been classified as high-risk and has already been placed on the market or put into service, in a way that the AI system becomes a high-risk AI system in accordance with this Regulation. Those provisions should apply without prejudice to more specific provisions established in certain Union harmonisation legislation based on the New Legislative Framework, together with which this Regulation should apply. For example, Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, establishing that certain changes should not be considered to be modifications of a device that could affect its compliance with the applicable requirements, should continue to apply to high-risk AI systems that are medical devices within the meaning of that Regulation.

Related across sources

Opinion 1/2026 EDPB-EDPS Joint opinion 1/2026 on the Proposal for a Regulation as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence EDPB, EDPB-EDPS Joint opinion 1/2026 on the Proposal for a Regulation as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Digital… Opinion Jan 21, 2026 Artificial Intelligence Annex III Amendments Application Scope: Temporal and Territorial Dimensions
Statement 3/2024 data protection authorities’ role in the Artificial Intelligence Act framework Final 1 Statement 3/2024 on data protection authorities’ role in the Artificial Intelligence Act framework Adopted on 16 July 2024 The European Data Protection Board has adopted… Statement ·EDPB Jul 16, 2024 Artificial Intelligence Single Point of Contact for AI Regulation Monitoring