Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 – the Digital Omnibus Regulation on AI – entered into force on 27 July 2026 and amended the AI Act on a point that is central for machine builders: AI in machinery is no longer regulated directly by the AI Act, but by the Machinery Regulation. For manufacturers, this means one regulatory layer fewer – but also a transitional phase in which the relevant detailed requirements are not yet available.
What changed on 27 July 2026?
The Digital Omnibus Regulation amends three legal acts at once: the AI Act (EU) 2024/1689, the Aviation Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 and the Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230. It was signed on 8 July 2026, published in the Official Journal on 24 July and entered into force three days later.
Four points are relevant for robotics.
First, the reference to machinery law within the AI Act was moved – from Annex I Section A to Section B – and in the process updated from the old Machinery Directive to the Machinery Regulation.
Second, the obligations for high-risk AI systems are postponed to 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028. The transparency obligations as of 2 August 2026 remained unchanged, and two additional prohibitions enter into force on 2 December 2026.
Third, the Commission is obliged to supplement the annex of the Machinery Regulation by means of delegated acts. The deadline for this is 2 August 2027.
Fourth, the obligation to register in the EU database remains in place, including for providers who classify their system themselves as not high-risk.
Why the move from Section A to Section B is decisive
Because it determines which set of rules applies.
For systems in Annex I Section A, the AI Act applies directly alongside sectoral law. Providers must directly meet the requirements for risk management, data governance, technical documentation, logging, transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness, as well as the provider obligations.
For systems in Annex I Section B, this is different: these systems are subject to the requirements and procedures of the respective sector-specific legislation, and the AI Act is for the most part not directly applicable to them. The corresponding requirements are instead anchored in the sectoral legal acts.
In practice, this means: a manufacturer whose machine contains AI will in future carry out one conformity assessment procedure under machinery law – not two in parallel. The level of protection is intended to remain equivalent; the duplication of work is eliminated.
Is an inspection robot a high-risk AI system?
In most cases not – but the answer depends on what the AI in the device is responsible for.
Under the AI Act, a system is considered high-risk if it is either itself a product covered by the Union harmonisation legislation listed in Annex I, or is used as a safety component of such a product – and if a third-party conformity assessment is required for that product.
The second part is the decisive one. Machinery is as a rule assessed by the manufacturer itself. A notified body must only be involved for the categories expressly listed in the Machinery Regulation – these include, among others, safety technology with fully or partially self-evolving behaviour that is based on machine learning.
This results in a distinction that is useful in practice.
Standard case – not high-risk. The system uses machine learning for navigation, mapping, object recognition or the analysis of thermal images. The safety functions – emergency stop, speed limitation, collision shutdown – work deterministically and do not learn. The conformity assessment is carried out by the manufacturer itself.
Exception – requires examination. A safety function itself is based on machine learning, for example if a learning model decides whether the device stops. The third-party assessment then applies, and with it, classification as high-risk becomes a real possibility.
For procurement, this leads to a specific question for the manufacturer: Which safety functions of the system are based on machine learning, and which work deterministically? The answer belongs in the technical documentation and should be available in writing.
Where a gap arises during the transitional period
Between 20 January and 2 August 2027.
The Machinery Regulation applies from 20 January 2027 and then replaces the Machinery Directive. The delegated acts intended to supplement the annex with the AI-specific health and safety requirements, by contrast, only have to be available by 2 August 2027.
During this period, the new machinery law applies, while the detailed requirements for AI components are not yet in the annex. For manufacturers who place a product on the market in this phase, this is not an exemption: the essential health and safety requirements apply in full, including the provisions on cybersecurity and on machinery with self-evolving behaviour. All that is missing is the detailed specification.
Anyone procuring during this period should therefore not rely on the state of the law at the time of purchase, but should agree in the contract how requirements specified at a later date will be dealt with.
The remaining framework of the Machinery Regulation is covered in Machinery Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 – what applies to robotics from 20 January 2027.
What operators should do now
Check whether any operator obligations arise from the AI Act at all. The obligations for deployers of high-risk AI systems only apply if the system is high-risk. For an inspection robot with deterministic safety technology, this is as a rule not the case.
Do not overlook the AI literacy obligation. The AI Act requires providers and deployers to ensure that their staff have a sufficient level of AI literacy. This obligation is not limited to high-risk systems and has applied since 2 February 2025. For operators, this means: document the training.
Include the question in the procurement process. Classification, the role of AI in the safety functions, the conformity route under the Machinery Regulation – this belongs in the requirements specification, not in the acceptance.
What manufacturers and importers should bear in mind
Anyone who imports robotics into the EU takes on far-reaching obligations. The switch to the Machinery Regulation and the parallel development of the delegated acts make the timing of market launch a strategic decision.
A conformity assessment completed shortly before 20 January 2027 under the old machinery law only covers products placed on the market before that date.
It should also be noted that a significant change in the design of an AI system after the relevant cut-off date triggers the full application of the high-risk provisions, including the conformity assessment. For systems that continuously receive new functions via firmware updates, this is not a theoretical case.
Assessment
The amendment is a simplification, not deregulation. The risk-based approach of the AI Act remains in place; what has shifted is the responsibility, not the level of protection. For inspection robotics, this is good news: a single conformity procedure under machinery law is more manageable than two parallel regimes with unclear boundaries.
It remains open how strict the delegated acts will turn out to be. Until 2 August 2027, it cannot be said conclusively which specific requirements will apply to AI components in machinery. We will update this article as soon as drafts are available.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 European Union accessed 15 August 2026
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence European Union accessed 15 August 2026
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 on machinery European Union accessed 15 August 2026
Change log (1)
- 5 October 2026 Initial publication First publication of the English version.