Under Article 101, the Commission may impose administrative fines on providers of general-purpose AI models of up to 15,000,000 euro or, if higher, 3 percent of the provider's total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year. The fines cover intentional or negligent infringement of the Chapter V obligations, supplying incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, and failure to comply with a request for documentation or information, a measure, or an evaluation. Periodic penalty payments may also be imposed to compel compliance. Article 101 is enforced by the Commission, not by national authorities, and it is distinct from the Article 99 penalty tiers, whose highest tier does not apply to general-purpose AI obligations as such.
Who can be fined under Article 101?
Article 101 applies to providers of general-purpose AI models. That scope is narrower than Article 99, which covers a wide range of operators, and it reflects the Union-level supervision of general-purpose AI models by the AI Office and the Commission. A downstream provider that incorporates a general-purpose model into an AI system is not fined under Article 101 for the model provider's Chapter V obligations, although it can face Article 99 penalties for its own system obligations. Conversely, a general-purpose AI model provider can face Article 101 fines for its model obligations and, where it also supplies an AI system, Article 99 penalties for its system obligations. The distinction turns on the role and the provision, and a provider that is both a model provider and a system provider should keep separate records for each role, so a fine or a request concerning one role is not confused with the other.
What infringements does Article 101 cover?
Article 101 covers intentional or negligent infringement of the obligations in Chapter V, including the obligations in Articles 53 and 55, the classification and notification duties, and the cooperation duties that support supervision. It also covers supplying incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the Commission or the AI Office, failing to comply with a request for documentation or information, failing to comply with a measure imposed by the Commission, and failing to give access for an evaluation or to comply with an evaluation requirement. The breadth of the information and cooperation limbs means that a provider's conduct during supervision matters as much as its substantive compliance: a provider that withholds information, gives misleading information or refuses an evaluation can be fined for that conduct even where the underlying model obligation is disputed. Every response to the Commission or the AI Office should therefore be checked for accuracy and completeness, and any correction should be made promptly and recorded.
For the broader regulatory framework, see enforcement and market surveillance.
What is the maximum fine?
The maximum administrative fine under Article 101 is 15,000,000 euro or, if higher, 3 percent of the provider's total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year. That figure is sometimes confused with the Article 99 highest tier of 35,000,000 euro or 7 percent, which applies to prohibited practices and does not apply to general-purpose AI obligations as such. The confusion should be avoided in every compliance file: the 7 percent tier belongs to Article 5, the 3 percent tier in Article 101 belongs to Chapter V, and the two should never be interchanged. The Article 101 maximum is a ceiling, not a tariff, and the amount in a case depends on the factors the Act lists, including the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement, the provider's cooperation, and any previous infringements. The Commission must also respect procedural guarantees, including the right to be heard, before imposing a fine.
What are periodic penalty payments?
In addition to fines, the Commission may impose periodic penalty payments to compel a provider to comply with a request, a measure or an evaluation obligation. A periodic penalty payment accrues for each day of delay or non-compliance, up to a maximum daily amount fixed by the Act, and it continues until compliance is achieved. The purpose is coercive rather than punitive: it creates a continuing financial pressure to comply, and it stops when the provider complies. A provider facing a periodic penalty payment should therefore prioritise the underlying compliance step, record the date and content of each submission, and seek clarification promptly if the requirement is unclear, rather than allowing the payment to accrue while the requirement is debated. The daily accrual should be tracked in the compliance file, with the total exposure visible to decision-makers, so a delay is never treated as cost-free.
How does the Commission procedure work?
The Commission procedure under Article 101 follows the supervisory work of the AI Office, which can investigate, request information, conduct evaluations and propose measures. Before a fine is imposed, the provider must be given the opportunity to be heard on the preliminary findings, and the Commission's decision must state its reasons and be subject to judicial review before the Court of Justice. The provider can submit observations, provide additional evidence and challenge the findings, and the Commission must take the provider's cooperation and any remedial action into account when setting the amount. Confidential information is protected under the Act's confidentiality rules, and the provider should identify confidential material when it submits it, rather than assuming all submitted material will be treated as confidential. A provider that receives a statement of objections or a request from the AI Office should treat it as a formal step, with a named owner, a deadline diary and a complete response record, and should seek qualified advice promptly.
Continue with the role and powers of the AI Office.
What does this guide not decide?
This guide does not state the fine that would be imposed for any particular infringement, does not predict how the Commission will exercise its discretion, and does not advise a provider on whether its model complies with Chapter V. Fine amounts depend on the facts, the factors in the Act, the provider's cooperation and the Commission's decision, and they require the consolidated text and qualified advice on the specific case. The guide also does not cover the detailed daily maximum for periodic penalty payments, which should be checked in the consolidated Article 101a before any reliance. Where a Commission request, evaluation or fine is in issue, confirm the position with the AI Office or a legal adviser, and keep the complete supervisory record with the model's compliance file.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Article 101 maximum 7 percent of turnover?
No. Article 101 fines are capped at 15 million euro or 3 percent of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. The 7 percent figure belongs to the Article 99 tier for prohibited practices and does not apply to general-purpose AI obligations as such.
Who imposes Article 101 fines?
The Commission imposes them, acting on the supervisory work of the AI Office, subject to procedural guarantees including the right to be heard and to judicial review.
Can a provider be fined for refusing an evaluation?
Yes. Failure to comply with a request for documentation or information, a measure, or an evaluation requirement is covered by Article 101, and periodic penalty payments can also be imposed to compel compliance.
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 ↗