EU Unveils General-Purpose AI Code of Practice Ahead of AI Act

On July 10, 2025, the European Union (EU) unveiled the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice, a voluntary framework designed to assist businesses in aligning with the forthcoming AI Act, set to take effect on August 2, 2025. This initiative aims to establish standardized guidelines for the development and deployment of AI technologies within the EU, emphasizing transparency, copyright compliance, and safety.

The GPAI Code of Practice was developed by 13 independent experts with input from over 1,000 stakeholders, including AI developers, industry organizations, academics, and civil society groups. It comprises three main chapters:

1. Transparency: Guidelines for AI model providers to disclose comprehensive information about their systems, ensuring clarity in development processes and functionalities.

2. Copyright: Measures to ensure AI systems comply with EU copyright laws, safeguarding the rights of content creators and intellectual property holders.

3. Safety and Security: Focuses on implementing measures to manage risks associated with advanced AI systems, particularly those that may pose systemic risks due to their capabilities or widespread use.

Adherence to the Code is voluntary; however, signatories will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and increased legal certainty under the AI Act. The Code serves as a tool for providers to demonstrate compliance with the AI Act's obligations, particularly concerning transparency and copyright.

The AI Act, which will begin enforcement on August 2, 2025, classifies AI applications based on their risk levels:

• Unacceptable Risk: Certain AI applications deemed to pose significant threats to safety or fundamental rights are prohibited.

• High Risk: Applications in critical sectors, such as healthcare and transportation, face stringent compliance obligations, including rigorous testing and documentation.

• Limited and Minimal Risk: These categories involve lighter regulatory requirements, focusing on transparency and user information.

Non-compliance with the AI Act can result in substantial penalties, with fines up to €35 million or 7% of a company's global revenue.

The introduction of the AI Act and the GPAI Code of Practice has elicited mixed reactions from the industry:

• Support for Regulation: Some stakeholders appreciate the EU's proactive approach to AI regulation, viewing it as a means to ensure safety, transparency, and trust in AI technologies.

• Calls for Delay: Major European corporations, including Airbus and BNP Paribas, have expressed concerns over the regulatory complexity and potential impact on competitiveness. In an open letter to the European Commission, these companies urged a two-year delay in the implementation of the AI Act, citing the need for clearer guidelines and more time to adapt.

• EU's Stance: Despite these appeals, the European Commission has confirmed that the AI Act will proceed as scheduled. Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier emphasized that there will be no pause, grace period, or halt, highlighting that the law's deadlines are legally binding.

The implementation of the AI Act and the GPAI Code of Practice carries significant social and societal implications:

• Consumer Protection: By enforcing transparency and safety measures, the regulations aim to protect consumers from potential harms associated with AI technologies.

• Innovation and Competitiveness: While the regulations seek to establish a safe AI environment, there are concerns that stringent requirements may stifle innovation and place European companies at a disadvantage compared to counterparts in regions with more lenient regulations.

• Global Influence: The EU's approach to AI regulation may set a precedent for other regions, potentially influencing global standards and practices in AI development and deployment.

The EU's introduction of the GPAI Code of Practice and the impending AI Act mark significant steps in the regulation of artificial intelligence. While these measures aim to ensure the safe and transparent development of AI technologies, they also raise important questions about innovation, competitiveness, and the balance between regulation and technological advancement.