Law / European Union

AI Act, Article 72 (post-market monitoring by providers and post-market monitoring plan)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Article 72

An AI risk obligations rule binding public and private bodies.

How the hook was established
express
What makes it apply
Market targeting, Place of effect
Obligation class
Governance
Audit expectation
continuous
Who audits it
Self

As of .

What it requires

  • For a high-risk AI system placed on the market or put into service, this duty takes effect on for a system classified under Article 6(2) and Annex III, and on for one classified under Article 6(1) and Annex I; a system already on the market before its date is reached only once its design changes significantly, or by if it is intended for use by public authorities. It does not apply to a system related to a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section B of Annex I, to which, under Article 2(2), only Article 6(1), Article 60a and Articles 102 to 112 apply.
  • If you are the provider of a high-risk AI system, establish and document a post-market monitoring system proportionate to the nature of the AI technologies and the risks of the system.NIST AI RMFMANAGE 4.1
  • Have the system actively and systematically collect, document and analyze relevant data on the system's performance throughout its lifetime, whether provided by deployers or collected through other sources, so that you can evaluate its continuous compliance with the Chapter III, Section 2 requirements; where relevant, include an analysis of its interaction with other AI systems. This does not cover sensitive operational data of deployers that are law-enforcement authorities.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.4
  • Base the post-market monitoring system on a post-market monitoring plan, and make the plan part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV.NIST AI RMFMANAGE 4.1
  • If your high-risk AI system is covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I and a post-market monitoring system and plan already exist under that legislation, you may integrate the necessary elements of this Article into them, using the template referred to in Article 72(3), provided that achieves an equivalent level of protection; a financial institution subject to internal-governance requirements under Union financial services law has the same choice for a high-risk AI system referred to in point 5 of Annex III that it places on the market or puts into service.

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of .

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • MEASURE 2.4The functionality and behavior of the AI system and its components – as identified in the MAP function – are monitored when in production.
  • MANAGE 4.1Post-deployment AI system monitoring plans are implemented, including mechanisms for capturing and evaluating input from users and other relevant AI actors, appeal and override, decommissioning, incident response, recovery, and change management.
NIST AI 600-1
NIST AI 200-2 Draft
  • 2.3Apply & Measure
  • 4.3Composing a TEVV Toolbox
OWASP LLM Top 10
OWASP Agentic Top 10
  • ASI09Human-Agent Trust Exploitation
MIT mitigations Draft
  • 1.1Board Structure & Oversight
  • 1.2Risk Management
  • 3.5Post-deployment Monitoring
  • 4.1System Documentation
FINOS AIGF
ETSI EN 304 223
  • 5.1.4-1Capability for human oversight designed in and maintained.
  • 5.2.1-1Full inventory of assets, including their dependencies and connections.
  • 5.2.4-1Developers keep an audit trail of system design and post-deployment maintenance plans and offer it downstream.
  • 5.4.2-1Operators log system and user actions.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.

If you get it wrong

Private right of actionNo

Penalty structure

Article 99(4)(a): non-compliance with the obligations of providers under Article 16 is fined up to EUR 15,000,000 or 3% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. Article 16, point (c), requires a quality management system complying with Article 17, and Article 17(1), point (h), requires that system to include the setting-up, implementation and maintenance of a post-market monitoring system in accordance with Article 72, which is how this row's duty is brought within point (a); Article 99(6) requires the lower of the two amounts for an SME, including a start-up; Article 99(6a), inserted by Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, gives the same lower-of treatment to a small mid-cap enterprise, since both apply to paragraph 4 fines.

Rule
Lower of for SME
As of
Currency
EUR
Fixed cap
15,000,000
Turnover percentage cap
3

Who enforces it

Settledness

As of
Open questions
Which data are 'relevant data' that a post-market monitoring system must actively and systematically collect under Article 72(2), and how far must a provider go to obtain performance data that its deployers hold?

What it makes you log

Logging duty

Article 72 requires the provider to establish and document a post-market monitoring system that collects, documents and analyzes performance data over the system's lifetime, based on a plan that forms part of the technical documentation. It does not use the words logs, records or audit trail, so the duty is read as implicit. It names no retention period and no one who may see the data; the plan is kept with the technical documentation under Article 18(1), and Article 12(2), point (b), requires the system's logs to support this monitoring.

Kind
Implicit
As of
Provision
Article 72(1) and (2)
Trigger
high_risk_systems

Why the legislator wanted it

Recital 155, first sentence.

As of
Quote
take into account the experience on the use of high-risk AI systems for improving their systems and the design and development process or can take any possible corrective action in a timely manner, all providers should have a post-market monitoring system in place.
Source link
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
Source kind
Recital
Purpose
  • oversight_and_correction
  • bias_and_performance_monitoring

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

Providers of a high-risk AI system must establish and document a post-market monitoring system in a manner proportionate to the nature of the AI technologies and the risks of the system.

The post-market monitoring system must actively and systematically collect, document and analyze relevant data on the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetime, provided by deployers or collected through other sources, which allow the provider to evaluate the continuous compliance of the systems with the requirements set out in Chapter III, Section 2.

Where relevant, post-market monitoring must include an analysis of the interaction with other AI systems, and the obligation does not cover sensitive operational data of deployers that are law-enforcement authorities.

The Regulation defines a post-market monitoring system as all activities carried out by providers of AI systems to collect and review experience gained from the use of the AI systems they place on the market or put into service, to identify any need to immediately apply any necessary corrective or preventive actions.

As amended by the Digital Omnibus on AI (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744), Article 72(3) bases the post-market monitoring system on a post-market monitoring plan that forms part of the technical documentation referred to in Annex IV, and requires the Commission, taking utmost account of the opinion of the Board, to adopt guidance, including a template, on that plan by .

The 2024 text of Article 72(3) instead required the Commission to adopt an implementing act establishing a template for the post-market monitoring plan and the list of elements to be included in the plan by . Recital 41 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 describes the change to Article 72(3) as the removal of the empowerment to adopt a harmonised template for a post-market monitoring plan, and calls the template the Commission's guidance is to include a voluntary template.

For a high-risk AI system covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section A of Annex I, where a post-market monitoring system and plan are already established under that legislation, the provider may integrate the necessary elements of Article 72(1) to (3), using the template referred to in Article 72(3), into the existing system and plan, provided that achieves an equivalent level of protection, and the same choice applies to a high-risk AI system referred to in point 5 of Annex III placed on the market or put into service by a financial institution subject to internal-governance requirements under Union financial services law.

Article 72 sits in Chapter IX, which keeps the Regulation's general application date of , but its duty falls on providers of high-risk AI systems, and the Digital Omnibus moved Chapter III, Sections 1 to 3, which hold the Article 6 rules that classify a system as high-risk, to for a system classified under Article 6(2) and Annex III and to for one classified under Article 6(1) and Annex I. The Omnibus also rewrote Article 111(2) so that the Regulation reaches the operators of a high-risk AI system placed on the market or put into service before the date Chapter III applies only if, from that date, the system's design changes significantly, so no provider of a system placed on the market or put into service is bound by Article 72 before ; the providers and deployers of a system intended for use by public authorities must take the necessary steps to comply by .

Article 72 does not apply to a high-risk AI system related to a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Section B of Annex I, to which, under Article 2(2), only Article 6(1), Article 60a and Articles 102 to 112 apply, and Articles 57, 58 and 59 apply only in so far as the requirements for high-risk AI systems under this Regulation have been integrated in that Union harmonisation legislation.

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app makes high-risk automated decisions or processes biometric data.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app