AI Act vs PLD: what they share and how they differ

AI Act and PLD share 6 of 24 control themes and 8 checks. 100% of PLD requirements can be proven with checks AI Act already uses, 27% the other way round.

EURegulationPhasing in

AI Act

How to make an AI system compliant with the EU AI Act

33 requirementsNext Aug 2, 2027
EUDirectiveAdopted, not yet applicable

PLD

Product liability: what changes for AI

4 requirementsNext Dec 9, 2026
6/24shared control themes
8shared checks
100%of PLD requirements covered by AI Act evidence
27%of AI Act requirements covered by PLD evidence

At a glance

AI Act PLD
JurisdictionEuropean Union sameEuropean Union same
KindRegulationDirective
StatusPhasing inAdopted, not yet applicable
BindingYes sameYes same
Object analysedAI systemDigital product
ScopeProviders, deployers, importers and distributors of AI systems; providers of GPAI models.Manufacturers, including those who substantially modify a product.
Territorial reachExtraterritorial: applies when the system is placed on the EU market or its output is used in the EU.Products placed on the EU market.
PenaltiesUp to €35M or 7% of worldwide turnover (prohibited practices); €15M or 3% (other obligations); €7.5M or 1% (incorrect information).Civil compensation, uncapped.
Qualification axesAI Act risk level, Organisation role, General-purpose model—
RolesProvider, Deployer, GPAI providerManufacturer, Substantial modifier
Requirements334
Next milestoneAug 2, 2027, Annex I high risk (regulated products); GPAI placed on the market before Aug 2025Dec 9, 2026, Transposition and application to products placed on the market

Theme by theme

requirements per theme

What they share: one piece of evidence, two frameworks

8

CodeCheckRequirements AI ActRequirements PLD
VER-005-01Complete technical documentation compliant with Annex IV
VER-006-01Documented log retention policy
VER-009-02Accuracy and robustness verified and documented
VER-009-03Cybersecurity of the AI system verified
VER-011-0110-year document retention policy documented and implemented
VER-021-F-01Operational monitoring plan
VER-026-F-01Contractual responsibilities documented between provider and third parties
VER-026-D-01Role qualification analysis (provider/deployer/distributor) carried out

Differences: requirements specific to each framework

Requirements with no check serving the other framework: the extra work.

AI Act

24

EX-001
EX-003
EX-008
EX-010
QMS Art. 17
EX-013
EX-016
CE marking Art. 48
EX-019
DPIA Art. 26§9
EX-020
FRIA Art. 27
EX-023
Accessibility Art. 16(l)
EX-024
EX-027
Compliant use Art. 26§1
EX-028
Input data Art. 26§4
EX-031

PLD

0

None: every requirement shares at least one check.

Timelines

PastSet in the textPotentialTo verify
Apr 21, 2021AI Act · Commission proposal
Jul 12, 2024AI Act · Published in the Official Journal
Aug 1, 2024AI Act · Entry into force
Dec 8, 2024PLD · Entry into force
Feb 2, 2025AI Act · Prohibited practices (Art. 5) and AI literacy (Art. 4)
Feb 11, 2025PLD · AI Liability Directive withdrawal announced
Jul 10, 2025AI Act · GPAI Code of Practice published
Aug 2, 2025AI Act · GPAI obligations, governance, penalties, notified bodies
Nov 19, 2025AI Act · Digital Omnibus proposal: high-risk delay tied to standards
Aug 2, 2026AI Act · General application: Art. 50, sandboxes, Annex III high risk (unless Omnibus delay)
Dec 9, 2026PLD · Transposition and application to products placed on the market
Aug 2, 2027AI Act · Annex I high risk (regulated products); GPAI placed on the market before Aug 2025
Dec 2, 2027AI Act · Omnibus backstop for Annex III high risk
Aug 2, 2028AI Act · Omnibus backstop for Annex I high risk
Aug 2, 2030AI Act · High-risk systems of public authorities already in service (Art. 111)

Run these requirements across all your AI systems

TrustFlow inventories your systems, qualifies them under each regulation and collects evidence once for every referential.

Request a demo