Yes, in defined cases. The AI Act can apply to providers and deployers outside the EU where they place an AI system or a general purpose model on the Union market, put it into service in the Union, or where the output of the system is used in the Union, subject to the conditions in Article 2. A provider established outside the Union that places a system or a model on the Union market must appoint an authorised representative established in the Union, under Article 22 for providers and Article 54 for general purpose model providers. A deployer outside the Union that uses output in the Union can also be within the Act. Location outside the EU does not by itself remove the Act, and location inside the EU does not by itself bring every use within it. The Article 2 tests must be applied to the facts.
What does Article 2 say about territorial reach?
Article 2 sets out the scope of the Regulation, including the persons and situations to which it applies. In outline, it applies to providers who place AI systems or general purpose models on the Union market or put them into service in the Union, including where the provider is established in a third country, to deployers of AI systems established in the Union, to deployers in a third country where the output of the system is used in the Union, to importers, distributors, product manufacturers and authorised representatives, and to affected persons in the Union where relevant. It also applies to providers and users in a third country where an international agreement provides for it, and to Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. That outline is not a substitute for the Article 2 text, which sets out each paragraph with its conditions, and which must be read in full for any cross border question. The key point for a reader outside the EU is that the Act looks at the market, the putting into service and the use of the output, not only at the place of establishment. A company that develops a system in a third country, hosts it in a third country, and sells it to customers in the Union, or makes it available for use in the Union, can be within the Act on the placing on the market or putting into service test. A company that develops a system for use only outside the Union, with no Union market, no Union putting into service and no Union use of output, will commonly be outside the Act on those tests, but that conclusion must be recorded with the facts, including the distribution channels, the marketing, the language, the currency, the customers and the use restrictions.
What is placing on the market and putting into service?
Placing on the market means the first making available of an AI system or a general purpose model on the Union market, and putting into service means the supply of an AI system for first use directly to the deployer or for own use in the Union for its intended purpose. Those definitions, in Article 3, matter for territorial reach, because a system that is made available to Union customers, that is supplied for use in the Union, or that is hosted and accessed from the Union, can be placed on the market or put into service in the Union even where the provider is established elsewhere. The facts that show placing on the market include the sales channel, the website targeting, the terms, the payment, the delivery and the support arrangements. The facts that show putting into service include the supply for first use, the installation, the configuration and the handover to the deployer. A system that is available on a public website, with no geo blocking and with Union customers, will be difficult to describe as not placed on the Union market. A system that is supplied under a contract that restricts use to a third country, with technical and contractual controls, and with no Union use, is in a different position, but the controls must be real, not only words in a contract. The record should state the distribution and use facts, and should be updated if the distribution or the use changes.
For the broader regulatory framework, see questions and misconceptions overview.
What is the output used in the Union test?
The output used in the Union test, in Article 2(1)(g), applies the Regulation to providers and deployers in a third country where the output produced by the system is used in the Union. That test covers a situation where a system is operated outside the Union, but its output, such as a score, a decision, a classification or a generated content item, is used in the Union to affect a person, a decision or a process in the Union. For example, a screening score produced outside the Union that is used to decide a job application in the Union, or a credit score produced outside the Union that is used to decide a loan in the Union, can bring the provider or deployer within the Act on that test. The test looks at the use of the output, not only at the location of the system. A provider or deployer that relies on the location of the system to argue that the Act does not apply, without examining the use of the output, will miss the test. The record should state where the system is operated, where the output is produced, where the output is used, who uses it, and what decision or process it affects. Where the output is used in the Union, the provider and deployer duties, the high risk classification and the transparency duties must be examined, with the authorised representative and the importer and distributor duties checked where relevant.
What must a third country provider do?
A provider established outside the Union that places a system or a model on the Union market must appoint an authorised representative established in the Union, by written mandate, under Article 22 for AI system providers and Article 54 for general purpose model providers. The authorised representative must be able to perform the tasks in the mandate, including keeping the documentation, cooperating with authorities, and providing information on request, and must be identified in the documentation and, where required, in the database. The provider remains responsible for compliance, and the authorised representative does not take over the provider duties. The provider must also meet the provider duties for its category, including the high risk requirements, the conformity assessment, the registration, the post market monitoring and the incident reporting, and must provide the information that importers and distributors need to meet their duties. A third country provider that appoints an authorised representative but does not meet the provider duties has not complied. A third country provider that meets the provider duties but has no authorised representative has also not complied. Both elements are required, and the record should show the mandate, the representative details, the provider duties and the cooperation arrangements. The authorised representative guide in the international cluster gives the detail for the mandate and the tasks.
What about the EEA, the UK and Switzerland?
The EEA, the UK and Switzerland are in different positions, and each must be labelled correctly. The EEA position is developing and unverified as checked on 29 October 2026, with no Joint Committee Decision incorporating the Regulation verified, and must be checked on EFTA and Joint Committee sources before any statement is made about EEA application. The UK has no AI Act equivalent and applies sector regulation, so a UK provider that places a system on the Union market is a third country provider for the Act, with the authorised representative duty, while a UK deployer that uses output in the Union can be within the output test. Switzerland is EFTA but not EEA, and is a third country for the Act, with the same third country provider and output tests. A reader should not describe the EEA, the UK or Switzerland as if they were Member States for the Act, and should not describe the Act as applying in those jurisdictions as domestic law, unless and until incorporation or domestic legislation provides for it. The international cluster gives the jurisdiction labelled position for each, with the recheck instructions. A cross border file should state the jurisdiction of the provider, the deployer, the system, the output and the affected persons separately, because each jurisdiction can point to a different answer.
Continue with territorial reach in Article 2.
What does this correction not decide?
This correction does not decide whether any named provider or deployer is within the Act, does not reproduce Article 2 in full, and does not state the EEA incorporation position or the UK or US position beyond the outline given here. Territorial reach needs the Article 2 text, the Article 3 definitions, the distribution and output facts, and confirmation from a competent authority or legal adviser where the position is borderline. This guide corrects the general misconception that the Act does not apply outside the EU, not the territorial position for a particular provider, deployer or system.
Frequently asked questions
Does a US provider selling to EU customers need to comply?
In defined cases, yes. A provider established in a third country that places a system or a model on the Union market, or puts it into service in the Union, is within Article 2 and must appoint an authorised representative and meet the provider duties for its category. The distribution, marketing and use facts must be checked.
What if the system is hosted outside the EU?
Hosting location alone does not decide the position. The placing on the market, putting into service and output used in the Union tests look at the market, the supply for first use and the use of the output. A system hosted outside the Union whose output is used in the Union can be within the Act on the output test.
Is an authorised representative enough for compliance?
No. The authorised representative is one element. The provider must also meet the provider duties for its category, including requirements, conformity, registration, monitoring and incident reporting, and must provide the information importers and distributors need. The representative does not take over the provider duties.
Does the Act apply in the UK or Switzerland?
Not as domestic law on the basis checked. The UK has no AI Act equivalent and Switzerland is a third country for the Act. UK and Swiss providers and deployers can be within the Act on the placing on the market, putting into service or output tests where those tests are met. The EEA position is developing and must be checked on EFTA and Joint Committee sources.
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 ↗AI Act Service Desk timeline ↗