Authorised representatives are the compliance bridge between certain non-EU AI providers and Union authorities. For high-risk systems and many GPAI models, the role requires a written mandate, specific verification and retention duties, authority cooperation, registration support where applicable, and a defined exit when the provider is acting contrary to the AI Act.
Article 22 governs authorised representatives for non-EU providers of high-risk AI systems. Article 54 creates a parallel regime for non-EU providers of GPAI models, including a limited open-source exception and AI Office cooperation duties.
Start with the actual system, role, use case and evidence boundary. The same regulation can produce different obligations for different actors and systems.
Providers established in third countries must appoint an authorised representative in the Union before making a high-risk AI system available on the Union market. Non-EU GPAI model providers generally face a parallel requirement before placing a GPAI model on the Union market.
The representative must be empowered by written mandate to verify specified compliance evidence, retain required documentation, respond to competent authorities, cooperate on risk-reduction actions and, where applicable, handle registration duties.
For high-risk systems, Article 22 requires specified documents and provider contact details to remain available for 10 years. For GPAI models, Article 54 likewise requires technical documentation and provider contact details to be retained for 10 years.
The representative is not merely a mailbox. Articles 22 and 54 require termination of the mandate when the representative considers or has reason to consider that the provider is acting contrary to its obligations, with prompt notice to the relevant authority.
The goal is not merely to reach an answer. It is to preserve what facts, evidence, scope and limitations supported that answer at that time.
Determine whether the mandate concerns a high-risk AI system under Article 22, a general-purpose AI model under Article 54, or both. Preserve the provider identity, system or model scope, establishment location and market-placement route.
For high-risk systems, cover conformity-document verification, document retention, authority requests, cooperation and registration. For GPAI, cover Annex XI technical documentation, Article 53 and where applicable Article 55 obligations, retention and AI Office cooperation.
Preserve mandate versions, provider contact details, declarations, technical documentation, certificates where applicable, registration evidence, authority requests, responses, logs under provider control where relevant, and cooperation actions.
A new product line, system version, GPAI model, provider restructuring, changed mandate or evidence of provider non-compliance can make the existing appointment incomplete. Preserve the basis for continuation or termination and any authority notice.
Choose the smallest operating tier that fits the portfolio today. Upgrade when system count, team size or governance scope actually requires it.
Keep a living system-level evidence record with obligations, gaps, versions and revalidation state.
START EVIDENCE PASSPORT →Coordinate evidence, owners, documentation, incidents and team compliance work in one governed workspace.
START COMPLIANCE WORKSPACE →Operate broader high-risk, GPAI, FRIA, post-market and material-change governance across a growing portfolio.
START GOVERNANCE PRO →Run institutional governance with expanded users, authority workflows, examiner rooms and portfolio reporting.
START INSTITUTION →Use the free classifier to establish the system, intended purpose, possible actor role, EU exposure and unresolved facts. When continuing evidence infrastructure is needed, paid access begins at $19 per month. Independent human readiness review remains a separate service.
Article 22 requires providers established in third countries to appoint, by written mandate, an authorised representative established in the Union before making their high-risk AI systems available on the Union market.
The mandate must empower the representative to verify that the EU declaration of conformity and technical documentation exist and that the appropriate conformity assessment was completed; retain specified documents; respond to competent authorities; cooperate on risk-reduction actions; and, where applicable, fulfil or verify registration duties.
Generally yes. Article 54 requires providers established in third countries to appoint an authorised representative in the Union before placing a GPAI model on the Union market. A limited exception exists for certain free and open-source GPAI models unless they present systemic risk.
Articles 22 and 54 both set 10-year retention periods for specified documents and provider contact details after the relevant high-risk system or GPAI model has been placed on the market or put into service, as applicable.
Yes. The written mandate must empower the representative to be addressed, in addition to or instead of the provider, on issues related to ensuring compliance with the AI Act.
The authorised representative must terminate the mandate if it considers or has reason to consider that the provider is acting contrary to its obligations, and must promptly inform the relevant market-surveillance authority or AI Office as applicable.
No. TA-14 can preserve the mandate scope, provider identity, evidence-retention state, authority communications, registration state, termination basis and revalidation history. It does not provide legal advice, certification, conformity assessment or regulatory approval.
TA-14 Exchange Activity
Live cumulative activity recorded across the public Exchange surface.
···
Visitors
Recorded public visitors
···
Page Views
Recorded Exchange views