Finally adopted — with five weeks to spare

After a failed round of negotiations in April, agreement was reached on 7 May. June brought the two formal decisions: on 16 June 2026, the European Parliament gave its final approval to the «Digital Omnibus on AI»; on 29 June, the Council of the EU formally adopted it.

Support had narrowed

A look at the numbers reveals a shift. In March, Parliament had adopted its negotiating position by 569 votes to 45, with 23 abstentions. In the final vote in June, the result was 423 to 57 — with 174 abstentions.

The votes in favour therefore fell by around a quarter, and the number of abstentions increased sevenfold. The text was adopted by a clear margin; but part of the house that had still gone along in March no longer wanted to approve it in the end — and did not vote against it either.

174 abstentions are not a no. They are a yes that nobody wanted to sign.

That settled it: the high-risk obligations of the AI Act do not take effect on 2 August 2026. The course of the procedure is documented by Parliament: European Parliament's Legislative Train.

Adopted is not the same as in force

In the EU, a few steps still lie between adoption and the first day of application. They explain why it became tight at the end of July:

• 8 July 2026: the regulation is signed and carries that date.
• 24 July 2026: publication in the Official Journal of the EU — as Regulation (EU) 2026/1744.
• 27 July 2026: entry into force, six days before the deadline it removed.

Five weeks to spare in the decision became six days to spare in effect.

The text in the Official Journal is the only version that counts: Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 on EUR-Lex.

What businesses take away from this

Anyone who had geared their planning in spring 2026 to 2 August could not be sure until the end of July that the postponement would really come. It was adopted in June — it became applicable law only five days before the date.

No dramatic lesson follows from this, but a sober one: with European law, the date in the Official Journal is the binding one, not the date of the vote. Anyone planning earlier is planning on a probability — and should say so.

And what was actually postponed and what was not is the question that really matters. It is covered in the article from August: three obligations are in fact not affected by the postponement at all.