IrelandRegulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026
Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026 (No. 31 of 2026)
In force since .
An AI governance rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- on_request
- Who audits it
- Regulator
What it requires
- Comply with information requests, contravention notices and prohibition notices issued by an authorised officer of a relevant market surveillance authority in respect of an AI system you provide or deploy (Part 5).NIST AI RMFGOVERN 1.1
- Do not knowingly give false or misleading information to an adjudicator, or disclose confidential material relevant to an adjudicator's finding without authorisation (ss. 95, 104).no control in the NIST AI RMF
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- GOVERN 1.1Legal and regulatory requirements involving AI are understood, managed, and documented.
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
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionNo
Criminal exposure note
Offences under ss. 36(3), 64(3), 70(10), 75(4), 89(3)(b), 95, 98(3) or 104(2): on summary conviction, a class A fine or imprisonment up to 12 months, or both; on conviction on indictment, a fine not exceeding EUR 250,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. Offences under ss. 54(2) or 89(3)(a): on summary conviction, a class A fine or imprisonment up to 6 months, or both; on indictment, a fine not exceeding EUR 50,000 or imprisonment up to 5 years, or both. Offences under ss. 58(3), 71(10) or 72(12): summary conviction only, a class A fine or imprisonment up to 6 months, or both (s. 121(1)-(3)).
Penalty structure
This EUR 1,000,000 cap applies only where an adjudicator imposes an administrative fine on a public body within the meaning of section 10 of the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019 (s. 105(5)(a)). A fine on any other person or undertaking instead follows the tiers the EU AI Act's own Article 99 sets, which this Act's section 105(2)-(4) and (5)(b) cross-refers to without restating; those Article 99 amounts are the eu jurisdiction's finding, not this instrument's.
- Rule
- Fixed only
- As of
- Currency
- EUR
- Fixed cap
- 1,000,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Oifig IS na hÉireann (AI Office of Ireland) and the market surveillance authorities designated for the AI Act, acting through this Act's authorised-officer and adjudicator scheme.
Enforcement record
Oifig IS na hÉireann (the AI Office of Ireland) has published no enforcement action, investigation, contravention notice, prohibition notice, forfeiture order or adjudicator determination under this Act since the Act came into operation on . The Office's own news and updates page, covering the whole of its existence, lists six items from through its most recent entry of : the European Commission's transparency-obligation guidelines, its own establishment together with the appointment of its Chief Executive Officer, the appointment of its Board, a visit to the RDI Hub in Kerry, the Board's inaugural meeting and a series of stakeholder engagements; none is an enforcement matter. The Office's publications page lists only national AI strategy and standards documents, with nothing about a case or a decision under this Act. The count of enforcement actions is 0 for the period from the Act's commencement () through .
- As of
- Source link
- https://aioffice.gov.ie/news-and-updates/
Settledness
- As of
- Open questions
- Until paragraphs (a) and (e) of the definition of 'applicable market surveillance authority' in section 78, which name Coimisiún na Meán and the Data Protection Commission, are brought into operation, can either body use the Act's notice of suspected non-compliance and adjudication scheme against a provider or deployer?
- Does 'public body (within the meaning of section 10 of the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019)' in section 105(5)(a), which caps a fine at EUR 1,000,000, include a private company that performs a public function under a contract with a public body?
What it makes you log
Who may demand the log
Regulator
Logging duty
Section 70 empowers an authorised officer to enter and search premises where records relating to a relevant AI product are kept, to secure such records for later inspection, and to require a person able to facilitate access to records stored on data equipment to give all reasonable assistance, including by providing the records in a form that is legible and comprehensible and by giving any password needed to read them. The section names records directly, but its own text is an access and production power over whatever a party already holds; it does not itself say what a regulated party must create or how long a record must be kept, and obstructing or failing to comply with a request under it is an offence under s. 70(9)-(10).
- Kind
- Implicit
- As of
- Provision
- s. 70(1)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c) and (2)
- Trigger
- all_systems
What this law does
This Act establishes Oifig IS na hÉireann as an independent statutory body, with its own Board and Chief Executive Officer, to give further effect to the EU AI Act in Ireland. Part 3 gives the Office the single-point-of-contact and AI register functions, lets it establish AI regulatory sandboxes, and creates a real-world testing regime for high-risk AI systems.
Part 4 sets general obligations on the relevant market surveillance authorities designated for the AI Act, including derogation, incident-reporting and complaints-handling duties. Part 5 builds the supervision scheme: authorised officers may serve contravention notices and prohibition notices, and may apply to the District Court for a forfeiture order.
Part 6 builds the adjudication and administrative-fines scheme: an independent adjudicator determines whether an AI Act breach occurred and what administrative fine, if any, to impose, and an adjudication takes effect when the High Court confirms it. An administrative fine otherwise follows the ceiling the AI Act's own Article 99 sets for the type of breach, except that a fine imposed on a public body is capped at EUR 1,000,000 regardless of which Article 99 tier would otherwise apply.
The Act creates criminal offences, with penalties set in Part 7, including for unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, obstructing or giving false information to an authorised officer or adjudicator, and disclosing material relevant to an adjudicator's finding without authorisation.
Parts 8 to 10 amend the Central Bank Act 1942 to give the Central Bank AI Act administrative-sanctioning powers, and make further amendments to the Communications Regulation Act 2002, the Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2014 and the Freedom of Information Act 2014.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes high-risk automated decisions, processes biometric data, generates content with AI or deploys a chatbot.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .