This content is protected against AI scraping.
1. Governance: understand the Irish supervisory map
In our latest article we take a deep dive into the Ireland AI Act compliance for international organisations
Ireland is creating a new independent authority, Oifig IS na hÉireann / AI Office of Ireland, as the central coordinating body for the AI Act. The Office is a statutory body under the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, with its own CEO and Board, and is designated both as a Market Surveillance Authority and as Ireland’s Single Point of Contact (SPOC) under Article 70 AI Act.
For international organisations, three governance consequences matter:
- You will face sectoral regulators plus a horizontal AI Office. Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs) map onto existing regulators (e.g. DPC, Coimisiún na Meán, HSA, HPRA, CRU, NTA, WRC, Central Bank, etc.) depending on use case.
- The AI Office will coordinate reporting, run a Cooperation Forum of competent authorities, and maintain national registers of prohibited practices and certain high‑risk AI systems.
- The Office will also shape policy through strategy statements, annual reports, and guidance, and can be given additional AI‑related functions over time.
Action point: in your EU AI governance map, treat Ireland as a multi‑regulator environment with one coordinating “gateway” authority, similar to how you already treat the DPC for GDPR plus sectoral regulators.
2. Scope and timelines: align AI and data protection roadmaps
The Irish AI Bill “gives further effect” to Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 and imports the AI Act’s definitions and Article 3 terminology. It does not redefine “AI system”, “provider”, “deployer”, or “high‑risk”; instead, it explicitly cross‑references the AI Act for interpretation. That means your global AI framework can rely on one EU‑wide definitional baseline, but must account for Irish institutional specifics and sanctions.
Key timing points:
- The Act may be commenced in stages by ministerial order.
- The AI Office’s Establishment Day must be set on or before 1 August 2026 to meet AI Act deadlines.
- Regulatory sandboxes cannot operate until relevant EU implementing acts under Article 58 AI Act are adopted; this is anticipated around early 2026.
Action point: integrate AI Act milestones and Irish Establishment Day into your enterprise compliance roadmap; ensure AI risk classification, DPIAs/AI impact assessments, and technical governance are mature by mid‑2026.
3. Sector‑based enforcement and risk management
Ireland has opted for a “distributed” model: each sectoral regulator becomes MSA for the AI systems within its remit, building on existing product and services legislation. The Bill confirms that MSAs use the powers in the EU Market Surveillance Regulation 2019/1020, extended and adapted for AI systems.
For a multinational, this has several practical implications:
- Multiple investigative touchpoints. MSAs can compel technical documentation, supply‑chain information, training and testing records, and—if necessary—source code for high‑risk systems, once other methods have been exhausted.
- Remote and covert supervision. MSAs may exercise powers remotely (e.g. online inspections, remote testing) and can buy or access AI systems under a cover identity and reverse‑engineer them.
- Risk‑based procedures. The Bill mirrors AI Act procedures for dealing with risky or misclassified systems: evaluation, corrective action, withdrawal/recall, and cross‑border notification.
Action point: ensure your documentation and technical evidence trail (risk management, data governance, testing, monitoring) is inspection‑ready for multiple regulators, and that you can respond to a contravention or prohibition notice within tight deadlines.
4. Complaints, incidents and fundamental rights oversight
The Irish framework builds strong channels for third‑party oversight and complaints, which will increase scrutiny of deployed systems.
Key features:
- Any natural or legal person may complain to the relevant MSA if they believe the AI Act has been infringed; MSAs must maintain procedures for handling complaints in line with the Market Surveillance Regulation.
- Providers of high‑risk AI must report serious incidents to the MSA in the Member State where they occur, with strict deadlines and obligations to investigate and remediate.
- Fundamental Rights Authorities (including the DPC, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Ombudsman bodies, etc.) can request MSAs to organise technical testing of high‑risk AI where fundamental rights risks are suspected.
The Bill makes clear that fundamental‑rights‑focused authorities gain additional powers (access to AI documentation and testing via MSAs) without taking on AI Act enforcement themselves. This will often mean AI investigations run in parallel with data protection or equality investigations.
Action point: align your AI governance with existing GDPR and equality governance: common incident response, common investigation playbook, and shared legal theories of harm (e.g. discrimination, profiling, automated decisions).
5. Data protection, data sharing and confidentiality
For an international organisation, one of the most sensitive dimensions is how AI supervision intersects with GDPR and trade secrets.
The Bill addresses this explicitly:
- The AI Office and all competent authorities are bound by Article 78 AI Act‑style confidentiality—protecting trade secrets, IP, and sensitive information, subject to certain exceptions.
- Specific Heads allow the AI Office and competent authorities to disclose personal data to other regulators, EU bodies, fundamental‑rights authorities or Gardaí, but only where necessary and proportionate, and subject to GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
- Data‑sharing agreements must meet the requirements of the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019, with added transparency on necessity and proportionality.
Crucially, where personal data are processed in the regulatory sandbox, the Data Protection Commission must supervise that processing. For global organisations, sandboxes will therefore be hybrid AI‑and‑privacy environments, not risk‑free “regulatory safe harbours”.
Action point: treat AI supervisory engagement as a regulated data‑sharing context: anticipate lawful basis, data minimisation, safeguards for special‑category data, and trade‑secret redaction strategies before sharing model artefacts with authorities.
6. Administrative sanctions and financial exposure
Ireland is putting in place a detailed administrative sanctions architecture for AI, with a split between the Central Bank (using its own regime) and other MSAs.
Core elements:
- Authorised officers investigate, issue notices of suspected non‑compliance, and can agree commitments or settlements.
- Independent adjudicators (appointed via an AI Office‑managed panel) impose administrative sanctions, including corrective measures and financial penalties, subject to High Court confirmation.
- Sanction levels mirror Article 99 AI Act: up to €35m or 7% of global turnover for prohibited practices; €15m or 3% for key operator obligations; €7.5m or 1% for providing incorrect or misleading information. SMEs benefit from capped percentages, and public bodies are capped at €1m.
Adjudicators must consider a wide range of factors—severity, duration, intent, cooperation, prior infringements, financial gains, harm to affected persons and other operators—before setting penalties.
Action point: build AI‑specific sanction risk into your enterprise risk and capital planning; ensure cooperation, documentation, and early remediation are prioritised to mitigate penalty levels.
7. Strategic opportunities: AI sandbox and Ireland as an AI hub
The AI Office is tasked with ensuring either a national AI regulatory sandbox or participation in an EU‑level sandbox, with priority access for SMEs and start‑ups and mandatory DPC involvement where personal data are processed. Objectives include evidence‑based regulatory learning, sharing best practice with authorities, and accelerating market access for compliant AI systems.
For international organisations, Ireland’s sandbox can be used to:
- Test high‑risk or innovative systems under supervisory oversight before full market launch.
- Co‑design controls and documentation that will satisfy Irish and EU expectations.
- Position Ireland as a lead jurisdiction for complex EU AI deployments, particularly where you are already centralising GDPR compliance there.
Action point: identify candidate systems for sandbox participation and design an internal “sandbox programme” that can plug into Irish and EU schemes once implementing acts are live.
FAQ: implementing an AI‑compliant framework for Ireland
Q1. If we comply with the EU AI Act centrally, do we need an Ireland‑specific AI framework?
Answer: You can and should build one EU‑wide core AI compliance framework, but Ireland’s Bill adds local features—AI Office coordination, sector‑specific MSAs, national registers, and specific sanctions procedures—that require tailored workflows and Irish‑specific regulator engagement plans.
Q2. Which Irish regulator will we deal with in practice?
Answer: It depends on your use case: financial services AI will sit with the Central Bank; employment‑related AI with the WRC; health‑related AI with the HSE and HPRA; digital platforms and media with Coimisiún na Meán; infrastructure with the CRU, NTA, ComReg and others—coordinated by the AI Office.
Q3. How will this interact with GDPR enforcement by the DPC?
Answer: The DPC is both an MSA for certain AI‑Act obligations and a Fundamental Rights Authority with powers to trigger testing via MSAs. AI investigations will frequently overlap GDPR investigations, so you should ensure joined‑up privacy and AI governance, and expect shared evidence to be reused across regimes.
Q4. Can authorities demand our models or source code?
Answer: Yes, but only as a last resort for high‑risk systems: MSAs can request access to source code where it is necessary to assess compliance and where testing and documentation review have proved insufficient. You should assume deep technical scrutiny is possible and design your IP protection and cooperation strategy accordingly.
Q5. Are public‑sector deployments treated differently?
Answer: Public‑sector bodies are still fully in scope, but the Bill caps their financial penalties at €1m. However, reputational, political and fundamental‑rights consequences are likely to be more significant than the cap, so public‑sector deployers should aim for best‑in‑class AI governance.
Conclusion: where Formiti AI Services fits
Ireland’s Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 turns the EU AI Act from a horizontal EU instrument into an enforceable, sector‑specific regime with a powerful central AI Office and a sophisticated sanctions and cooperation architecture. For international organisations, the message is clear: success in Ireland will require an integrated AI governance model that binds together technical controls, fundamental‑rights safeguards, GDPR‑grade data protection, and sectoral regulatory strategy.
Formiti AI Services is positioned to support this end‑to‑end journey: mapping your AI inventory against Irish and EU risk categories; designing governance, documentation and incident‑handling frameworks that will stand up before Irish MSAs, the AI Office and the DPC; and helping you use tools such as the Irish AI sandbox strategically rather than reactively. In a landscape where AI innovation and regulatory scrutiny are advancing in lockstep, that kind of integrated support is rapidly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury.