An agent isn't a chatbot: it reasons in chains, remembers, acts on its own and connects to your systems. The AEPD has published guidance on what changes under the GDPR when AI stops responding and starts acting.
Using an AI model isn't the same as modifying it, and modifying it enough moves you into a different box under the AI Act. The Commission's guidelines put a concrete threshold on that line. What it means for a company fine-tuning Llama or Mistral with its own data.
The duty for a chatbot to disclose that it's an AI falls on whoever designs it, not on whoever uses it. What the deploying company owes is something else: checking it works and not breaking it. The difference matters more than it seems.
The AEPD's free tools are an excellent starting point for an SME's basic GDPR compliance. The Agency itself warns of their limit: obtaining the documents doesn't mean you comply. And AI, by design, falls outside their scope.
The technical standards that will make high-risk obligations operable under the AI Act are not yet published, let alone cited in the Official Journal. What that means for anyone buying or deploying high-risk systems, and why certain marketing claims deserve scepticism.
While many companies watch the AI Act calendar, they forget that the GDPR already applies to AI today. The patterns that generate the most enforcement cases are avoidable, and they all point to the same thing: missing assessment and missing evidence.
While everyone celebrates the postponement of high-risk obligations, the transparency duty under Article 50 still applies from 2 August 2026. It's the date many SMEs aren't watching.
The Digital Omnibus rewrites Article 4 in a less demanding tone. That doesn't mean AI literacy stops mattering. It means exactly the opposite of what alarmist messaging sells.
They look alike, they overlap, and they get confused more often than they should. But the AI Act's FRIA and the GDPR's DPIA are structurally different instruments. Treating one as the other is a mistake with consequences.
AI-assisted image diagnosis is already routine in many clinics. Understanding why it's classified the way it is — and which obligation lands first — avoids both panic and carelessness.