Report serious incidents to market surveillance authorities

Practical action

Add AI serious-incident criteria and time limits to your existing incident-response playbook.

Who does it apply to?

Providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems.

Actors

Provider / developerDeployer / user organisation

Sectors

Cross-sector / all sectors

Use cases

Biometrics and facial recognitionAI in healthcareSafety-critical and infrastructure

Applies from: 2 December 2027

Which controls meet this duty?

Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.

• satisfiesProcessIncident coordinator · continuous
  AI incident management and regulatory reporting

  Serves 14 recorded duties · evidence: AI incident response playbook, AI incident record, Incident report to an authority

  Serious-incident criteria, causal-link decision and the reporting clock in the playbook.

• supportsTechnical measureEngineering lead · continuous
  Automatic event logging and record retention

  Serves 9 recorded duties · evidence: AI system event logs, Log schema and retention standard, Log integrity and retention check

  Logs support the investigation and report.

Templates that cover this duty

Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.

• EU AI Act Role and Risk Classifier

  Checklist · XLSX · v4

• AI Incident Response Playbook and Log

  Procedure · DOCX and XLSX · v3

• EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit

  Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v32

• ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability

  Assessment · XLSX · v3

All 9 templates that cover it →

What evidence would a reviewer expect?

Framework mappings

Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.

See every European Union duty mapped this way →

Frequently asked questions

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Report serious incidents to market surveillance authorities (EU AI Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0021, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0021 (accessed 27 October 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0021: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.

Cite the official text alongside it: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, Official Journal of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj.

@misc{aipolicytracker2026_reportseriousincidentsto,
  author       = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
  title        = {{Report serious incidents to market surveillance authorities (EU AI Act)}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-serious-incident-reporting}},
  url          = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/eu-ai-act-serious-incident-reporting},
  urldate      = {2026-10-27},
  note         = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 27 October 2026}
}

Change history

Similar obligations in other instruments

• Providers must take corrective action and inform the supply chain about non-conforming high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
• Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office — EU AI Act, European Union
• Report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services — California SB 53, California (United States)
• Implement reasonable security safeguards and notify breaches — India DPDP Act, India
• Developers must notify the Attorney General and deployers of discovered algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
• Deployers must notify the Attorney General of discovered algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)