Under Article 85, without prejudice to other administrative or judicial remedies, any natural or legal person having grounds to consider that there has been an infringement of the provisions of the Regulation may submit a complaint to the relevant market surveillance authority. Complaints must be taken into account for the purpose of conducting market surveillance activities, and must be handled in line with the dedicated procedures established by the market surveillance authorities, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. A complaint is not a substitute for a legal claim, and it does not by itself decide that an infringement has occurred: it triggers the authority's consideration of whether surveillance action is warranted.
Who can complain, and about what?
Any natural or legal person having grounds to consider that an infringement of the Regulation has occurred may complain. The complainant does not need to be the person directly affected by the system, although a complaint from an affected person, a worker, a consumer, a researcher or a civil society organisation will carry different weight depending on the grounds and evidence it presents. The subject of the complaint must be an infringement of the Regulation: a general concern about artificial intelligence, a disagreement with a lawful use, or a complaint about a matter governed only by other law should be directed to the appropriate forum. A complainant should therefore identify the provision said to be infringed, the system and operator concerned, and the facts that give grounds for the complaint, rather than making a general allegation. A complaint that cannot identify a provision or a system is unlikely to lead to surveillance action, however strongly it is expressed.
Which authority should receive the complaint?
A complaint should be submitted to the relevant market surveillance authority, which is the authority of the Member State concerned with responsibility for market surveillance of the system in question. Where the system is supplied in several Member States, the relevant authority is generally the authority of the Member State where the infringement is said to have occurred or where the system is made available, and the single point of contact in that Member State can help identify the correct authority. Where the system is a general-purpose AI model supervised at Union level, a complaint about the model provider's Chapter V obligations should be directed through the route the Commission provides for that supervision, rather than to a national market surveillance authority that does not supervise the model. A complainant who is unsure of the relevant authority should check the Member State's designation and the Commission's information before filing, and should record the authority, the date and the reference given for the complaint.
For the broader regulatory framework, see enforcement and market surveillance.
What should a complaint contain?
A useful complaint contains the complainant's identity and contact details, or the identity of the organisation complaining, the system and operator concerned, the provision said to be infringed, the facts and evidence supporting the complaint, and the outcome sought. Evidence can include the system's output, the interaction or decision concerned, the provider's or deployer's communications, and any documentation the complainant holds, with personal data limited to what is necessary for the complaint. The complaint should distinguish facts the complainant observed from inferences drawn from them, and should state what the complainant does not know, so the authority can assess what further investigation is needed. A complaint should not include speculative allegations about the system's internal workings that the complainant cannot support, and it should not reproduce material that is confidential or that identifies other people unnecessarily. The authority's dedicated procedures will set out the form, language and handling arrangements, which should be checked before filing.
How must an authority handle a complaint?
Complaints must be taken into account for the purpose of conducting market surveillance activities, and must be handled in line with the dedicated procedures established by the market surveillance authorities, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. That means a complaint is an input to surveillance, not a direction to the authority: the authority assesses the grounds, decides whether an evaluation is warranted, and prioritises its surveillance work on the basis of risk and resources. The complainant should therefore not expect an immediate decision on the merits, and should not treat the absence of immediate action as a finding that no infringement occurred. The authority must handle the complaint under its procedures, which should include acknowledging receipt, assessing admissibility and grounds, and informing the complainant of the outcome or of the action taken where the procedure provides for it. A complainant who receives no response within the procedure's timescale should follow the procedure's escalation route rather than filing duplicate complaints.
How do complaints relate to other remedies?
Article 85 states that the right to complain is without prejudice to other administrative or judicial remedies. A complainant can therefore also pursue a data protection complaint, a consumer complaint, an employment claim, a judicial remedy or another route, subject to the rules of each forum, and the existence of a market surveillance complaint does not prevent those routes. Conversely, a person subject to a decision based on a high-risk system's output has a right to an explanation under Article 86, and persons reporting infringements are protected under Article 87, and those routes should be used where they fit the facts better than a complaint. An operator that receives notice of a complaint should treat it as a supervisory signal, preserve the relevant records, and assess whether the facts alleged indicate a compliance gap, rather than treating the complaint as a public relations issue. The operator's response to the authority, not its response to the complainant, is what determines the surveillance outcome.
Continue with the market surveillance procedure under Article 74.
What does this guide not decide?
This guide does not decide whether a particular complaint is well founded, which authority will act on it, or what action will follow. Those matters depend on the facts, the provision, the evidence and the authority's assessment under its dedicated procedures, and they require the consolidated text and the authority's procedures to be applied to the specific case. The guide also does not describe any Member State's complaint procedure in detail, since procedures vary by authority and should be checked before filing. Where a complaint has been made or received, seek qualified advice on the handling, the evidence and the response, and keep the complete complaint and response record with the system's compliance file.
Frequently asked questions
Must a complainant be directly affected by the system?
No. Any natural or legal person having grounds to consider that an infringement has occurred may complain. The grounds and evidence matter more than the complainant's relationship to the system, although affected persons' evidence will often be the most direct.
Does a complaint force the authority to act?
No. Complaints must be taken into account for market surveillance and handled under the authority's dedicated procedures. The authority assesses the grounds and decides whether an evaluation or other surveillance action is warranted.
Does complaining prevent other legal action?
No. Article 85 is without prejudice to other administrative or judicial remedies, which can be pursued subject to the rules of each forum.
Continue through this AI Act cluster
This article is an informational overview, not a legal determination. Check the current legal text and official implementation guidance for your system and role.
Consolidated Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, as amended ↗AI Act Service Desk implementation timeline ↗