Under Article 54, a provider of a general-purpose AI model established outside the Union must, before placing the model on the Union market, appoint by written mandate an authorised representative established in the Union. The representative must be empowered to perform the tasks set out in the mandate, including cooperating with the Commission and national authorities, and the provider remains responsible for its own duties. A limited exception applies to certain free and open-source models, subject to the conditions in the article.
When does Article 54 apply?
Article 54 applies to providers of general-purpose AI models who are established outside the Union and who place a model on the Union market. Establishment is the key trigger, not the location of training infrastructure alone, and placing on the market is the relevant act. A provider established in the Union does not face the same Article 54 appointment duty for that reason, although other duties in Chapter V still apply. A provider outside the Union should therefore establish, for each model, where the provider is established, whether the model is placed on the Union market, and when that placing occurs. Those three facts should be recorded before launch, because appointing a representative after placing can leave a gap that is difficult to explain to a supervisor.
What must the written mandate cover?
The appointment must be made by written mandate, and the mandate must empower the authorised representative to perform the tasks specified in Article 54. In outline, those tasks include verifying that the technical documentation and related material have been drawn up, keeping copies available for the Commission and national authorities, providing information on request, and cooperating with authorities on action to address risks. The mandate should name the representative, identify the models covered, state the tasks and any limits, and be signed and dated. A vague commercial agreement that does not address the statutory tasks is not a substitute for a mandate that tracks the article. Both parties should keep a copy, record any change to the mandate, and check that contact details and document holdings remain current.
For the broader regulatory framework, see General-purpose AI models overview.
How is Article 54 different from Article 22?
Article 54 and Article 22 both concern authorised representatives, but they address different layers. Article 22 concerns providers of high-risk AI systems established outside the Union, while Article 54 concerns providers of general-purpose AI models established outside the Union. The mandates, the documents to be held, and the authorities to be cooperated with differ because the underlying duties differ. An organisation that is both a high-risk system provider and a general-purpose model provider may need two mandates, or a single mandate that clearly covers both roles and both sets of tasks, depending on its structure. Teams should not assume that an Article 22 appointment automatically covers a model, or that an Article 54 appointment covers a system. The role record should state, per product, which article the appointment relies on.
What should the representative be able to do in practice?
In practice, an authorised representative needs access to the right documents, a working contact route to the provider, and a clear escalation path when an authority makes a request. The representative should know where the current technical documentation, copyright policy and training summary are held, who at the provider can answer technical questions, and how quickly information can be produced. The provider should test that route before it is needed, for example by a dry run request, and should record the result. The representative should also know when to refer a question back to the provider rather than answering from its own knowledge. A representative who cannot reach the provider, or who holds only outdated documents, will not be able to perform the mandate as the article intends.
What happens when the provider or the model changes?
A change of provider, a change of representative, a new model version, or a change in establishment can all affect the mandate. The mandate should be reviewed when any of those events occurs, and a new or amended mandate should be put in place before the affected model is placed on the market under the new arrangement. The outgoing representative's document holdings and the handover of pending requests should be recorded, so that there is no period in which no representative can respond. Teams should also check whether a downstream modification has created a new provider of a modified model, because that can create a separate appointment question. The change log for the mandate should sit alongside the model version history, so the two can be read together.
Continue with Chapter V map for general-purpose AI models.
What does this guide not decide?
This guide does not decide whether a particular provider is established outside the Union, whether a model has been placed on the Union market, whether a mandate is sufficient, or whether a representative has performed its tasks. It does not choose a representative, assess a commercial agreement, or determine the effect of a corporate restructuring on establishment. Those questions turn on the provider's actual establishment, the placing act, the mandate wording, and the consolidated legal text. A provider should confirm its Article 54 position with a competent authority or legal adviser before placing a model on the market, and should keep the mandate and the reasoning under review.
Frequently asked questions
Must the representative be established in the Union?
Yes. Article 54 requires an authorised representative established in the Union, appointed by written mandate before the model is placed on the Union market. The representative's establishment, contact details and mandate should be recorded and kept current.
Does appointing a representative transfer the provider's duties?
No. The representative performs the tasks in the mandate and cooperates with authorities, but the provider remains responsible for its Chapter V duties. The mandate should make the division of tasks clear, and the provider should keep its own documentation and oversight in place.
Is there an exception for open-source models?
Article 54 contains a limited provision for certain free and open-source general-purpose AI models, subject to its conditions. The exception should not be assumed from a licence label alone. The release terms, the model, and the conditions in the article should be checked and recorded in each case.
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 ↗Commission AI Act Service Desk timeline ↗European Commission AI Act overview ↗