Ten EU Countries Just Pushed Back on Germany's Bid to Strip Industrial AI from the AI Act

The Fight Germany Is Losing

On April 22, ten EU member states sent a clear signal to Brussels: they do not agree with Germany's push to move industrial AI products out of the EU AI Act's main framework and into sector-specific legislation instead.^[1]

The signatories — Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Romania, and Latvia — sent a formal paper to the Council opposing the proposal, backed by statements from multiple governments warning it would mean "deregulation, not simplification."^[2]

EU ambassadors met on April 23 to find a compromise position. European Parliament, Council, and Commission negotiators are scheduled to close a final trilogue deal by Tuesday, April 28.^[1] The outcome of that negotiation will determine whether a wide range of AI-enabled products face the full force of the AI Act — or whether they move to sectoral rules that may be lighter on compliance obligations.

What Germany Is Proposing — and Why

Chancellor Friedrich Merz made Germany's position explicit at the Hannover Messe industry fair this week: industrial AI needs more regulatory freedom than consumer-facing AI applications, to boost productivity and keep European manufacturers competitive.^[3]

Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger went further, arguing that existing proposals had not gone far enough to reduce what industry calls the double-regulation burden — AI products that are already covered by sector-specific rules (medical device regulations, machinery directives) and now face overlapping AI Act obligations on top.^[1]

The companies most directly advocating for the shift are Siemens and Bosch — both large industrial groups whose AI-enabled products (industrial robots, predictive maintenance systems, connected machinery) sit at the intersection of existing sectoral regulation and the AI Act's horizontal risk framework.^[1]

Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky called Germany's position "lonely" — a characterisation that is now backed by ten governments formally disagreeing.^[1]

The Ten Countries' Counter-Argument

The opposing countries' core position is straightforward: the shift would reduce regulatory protections without genuinely simplifying the compliance landscape — it would just move the regulatory authority from one framework to another, not reduce the burden on businesses.^[2]

Their concern is structural. Sectoral legislation — the Machinery Regulation, the Medical Device Regulation — was not designed around AI risk management. Moving AI products into those frameworks does not replicate the AI Act's risk classification system, its conformity assessment requirements, or its incident reporting obligations. You are replacing one regime with a different one that was not built for the same purpose.

Social Democrat lead trilogue negotiator Brando Benifei has made the same point publicly: the shift does not solve double regulation — it dissolves the AI Act's protections for industrial AI products without substituting equivalent safeguards.^[1]

Why the Ten-Country Opposition Matters for SMEs

The timing of this fight is not accidental. The August 2, 2026 deadline is 101 days away. Whatever the trilogue agreement produces, it will land while companies are already in the middle of preparing for AI Act obligations — and the question of whether a company's AI-enabled product is covered by the AI Act's horizontal framework or sectoral rules will determine which compliance path they follow.

For small and medium European businesses, the stakes are specific:

If the sectoral shift succeeds: AI-enabled machinery, medical devices, and other industrial products could be regulated primarily under existing sector frameworks rather than the AI Act. The AI Act's risk classification, conformity assessment, and incident reporting requirements may not apply directly — depending on how the final text is drafted. Compliance costs for SMEs could fall for these product categories.
If the ten-country opposition prevails: The AI Act's horizontal framework holds for industrial AI products. High-risk AI in machinery, medical devices, and similar categories continues to face full AI Act obligations — including conformity assessments, technical documentation, and incident reporting. The August 2 deadline applies as written.
For SMEs outside Germany: The ten-country opposition matters because a qualified-majority Council vote on the Parliament's proposal would be blocked by this coalition. Germany cannot push this through alone — it needs Council agreement. The political mathematics mean the final deal will almost certainly be a compromise, not a wholesale sectoral shift.

What to Expect from the April 28 Trilogue

The Resultsense analysis is probably right: expect a two-tier outcome rather than a full sectoral shift.^[1]

The clearest cases — AI-enabled machinery already covered by equivalent rules with equivalent risk management provisions — are likely to get some sectoral relief in the final text. Medical devices and higher-risk categories almost certainly stay under the AI Act's horizontal framework. The boundary definition will be the crux of the trilogue negotiation.

The ten-country opposition has effectively raised the political cost of a wholesale sectoral shift. Germany has allies in the industrial lobby but not in the Council voting bloc needed to make it law. Social Democrat and Green MEPs who control the Parliament's negotiating position have been consistent: the AI Act's risk framework cannot be dismantled through the back door of sectoral legislation.^[2]

What This Means for Your Compliance Planning

Three practical takeaways if you are an SME using or building AI-enabled industrial products in the EU:

Monitor the trilogue outcome closely next week. The deal is expected by Tuesday, April 28. If you make industrial AI products that could fall into the sectoral-shift category, the compliance path you are planning for may change materially.
The AI Act is not being dismantled — but it is being shaped. Even if some products move to sectoral rules, the AI Act's core framework for high-risk systems is not disappearing. The question is which products qualify for the sectoral alternative and how that exception is defined.
If you are in one of the ten opposing countries, your national regulator is likely to enforce the AI Act more strictly than in Germany. That may mean different compliance experiences depending on where your national competent authority sits on the question — a practical consideration for cross-border compliance planning.

The Bottom Line

The Germany-versus-ten-countries standoff is a snapshot of a broader EU argument: how much does the AI Act apply to AI embedded in products that already have their own regulatory frameworks? The answer the trilogue produces by April 28 will shape the compliance landscape for industrial AI across Europe for years.

For SMEs: the AI Act is still coming in August. The sectoral shift debate is not about whether the regulation exists — it is about which products fall within its scope and through which regulatory door. That distinction matters for which conformity assessment path you follow, which notified bodies you engage with, and which enforcement authority has oversight of your product. Watch for the trilogue outcome and assess its impact on your specific product categories once the text is public.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.