Article 91: Power to request documentation and information
Article 91 empowers the Commission to request from a provider of a general-purpose AI model the documentation drawn up under Article 53 and Article 55, or any further information needed to assess compliance. The AI Office may open a structured dialogue first. It is not the list of criteria for calculating national fines, which is Article 99(7).
Who does this apply to?
- -Providers of general-purpose AI models, including those with systemic risk
- -Legal and compliance teams responsible for producing Article 53 and Article 55 documentation on request
Scenarios
A large multinational provider of a high-risk AI hiring system is found to have deliberately omitted bias-testing data from its conformity assessment documentation under Article 43. This is the provider's second infringement in three years. The national market surveillance authority calculates the fine under Article 91 criteria.
A start-up deploying an AI customer service chatbot fails to provide the required transparency disclosure under Article 50 (users are not informed they are interacting with AI). The start-up immediately corrects the issue upon receiving notice from the market surveillance authority, cooperates fully with the investigation, and self-reports a related transparency gap in another product.
What Article 91 does (in plain terms)
Article 91 is not the list of criteria for calculating national fines. That is Article 99(7). It is the power to obtain documentation and information from GPAI providers.
1. The Commission may request the documentation under Article 53 and Article 55, or any further information needed to assess compliance. 2. Before sending the request, the AI Office may open a structured dialogue. 3. On a duly reasoned request from the scientific panel, the Commission may request information where that is necessary and proportionate to carry out its tasks. 4. The request states the legal basis, the purpose, what is required and the deadline. 5. Supplying incorrect, incomplete or misleading information exposes the provider to Article 101, not Article 99.
How Article 91 connects to the rest of the Act
- Article 53 and Article 55: the documentation the Commission may demand.
- Article 90: a scientific panel alert that may precede a request for information.
- Article 92: the power to conduct evaluations where the Article 91 information is insufficient.
- Article 101: fines for incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.
- Article 94: the procedural rights of the GPAI provider.
Practical guidance
For GPAI providers:
1. Keep the Article 53 and Article 55 documentation ready to produce inside the deadline stated in the request. 2. Name the people authorised to represent the provider. Lawyers may transmit, but responsibility for the content stays with you. 3. Treat any inaccuracy or omission as an Article 101 fine risk, not an Article 99 one.
Compliance checklist
- Document all compliance efforts, risk assessments, and training activities to demonstrate non-intentional character in case of infringement (Art. 91(d)).
- Establish rapid-response procedures for self-reporting discovered non-compliance to benefit from the self-reporting mitigating factor (Art. 91(h)).
- Define an internal cooperation protocol for responding to market surveillance authority investigations fully and promptly (Art. 91(f)).
- Maintain a corrective action register documenting all steps taken to mitigate damage from any identified non-compliance (Art. 91(e)).
- Track enforcement history across all Member States to understand your repeat-offender risk profile (Art. 91(g)).
- Prepare a mitigation brief template that maps your circumstances to each Article 91 factor for use in any enforcement proceeding.
Prepare your mitigation strategy before enforcement, start the free assessment.
Start free assessmentRelated articles
Frequently asked questions
Does Article 91 apply to fines imposed by the Commission on GPAI providers?
Article 91 primarily governs national authority fine calculations. Fines imposed by the Commission on providers of general-purpose AI models under Article 100 follow the Commission's own procedural rules, though similar proportionality principles apply. The EDPS fines under Article 98 for Union institutions also consider analogous factors.
How much weight does self-reporting carry in reducing a fine?
Article 91 does not assign numerical weights to individual factors, it requires authorities to take all listed factors into account as a whole. However, in analogous EU enforcement frameworks (GDPR, competition law), self-reporting combined with full cooperation has historically resulted in significant fine reductions, sometimes 20-50% below what would otherwise be imposed.
Can a small company argue that any fine would threaten its economic viability?
Yes, but indirectly. While Article 91 itself lists size and market share as a factor, the economic viability argument is primarily grounded in Article 90, which requires Member States to consider SME and start-up interests. Together, Articles 90 and 91 require that fines be scaled to an operator's capacity to pay without being driven out of business.