AI Act Omnibus Trilogue Resumes 13 May: Cyprus Presidency Has Weeks to Save the December 2027 Postponement
The third political trilogue on the EU’s AI Act Omnibus is scheduled for approximately 13 May 2026, two weeks after the second trilogue collapsed on 28 April after roughly twelve hours of negotiation. The follow-up session is the Cypriot Council Presidency’s last realistic opportunity to close the file before its term ends on 30 June 2026 — with the original 2 August 2026 AI Act high-risk deadline now visible on the calendar.
Why 28 April failed
The 28 April trilogue did not collapse over the headline elements of the Omnibus, which had broadly converged. Both Parliament and Council had agreed on the postponement of high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027 for stand-alone Annex III systems and to 2 August 2028 for AI embedded in Annex I products. Both had agreed on the prohibition of AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery and child sexual abuse material. Both had agreed on the streamlined registration database and the broader legal basis for bias detection. The disagreement was on a single architectural question: conformity assessment for AI in regulated products under Annex I.
The Section A vs Section B fight
Annex I covers AI as a safety component in products already governed by EU sectoral safety law — machinery, medical devices, in-vitro diagnostics, toys, cableways, gas appliances, pressure equipment, radio equipment. Section A products currently sit under a combined regime where the sectoral conformity assessment applies and AI Act requirements layer on top. The Parliament’s negotiating position, backed by Germany, was to move some or all Annex I-A products to Section B, making sectoral conformity assessment the primary pathway and integrating AI Act requirements into existing product-safety frameworks. The Council resisted. Neither moved. The package collapsed.
Why this matters substantively
Where conformity assessment lives determines who designates the notified bodies, what rules apply to software updates, and how the AI Office’s enforcement reach intersects with sectoral regulators. The Standing Committee of European Doctors has called for medical devices to remain in the AI Act’s direct scope — concerned that primarily sectoral handling could dilute fundamental rights protections. EDRi and forty other civil society organisations have echoed that concern. The Council’s resistance was substantive, not procedural.
What 13 May can deliver
Four scenarios are now plausible. Quickly closing the file in May (Cyprus’s preferred outcome) requires Parliament to pull back from the Section A move, in exchange for procedural commitments on sectoral coordination. A late deal under the Lithuanian Presidency starting 1 July remains possible but the original 2 August 2026 deadline would apply legally even as the Commission may issue forbearance guidance. A split deal — carving Annex I into a separate legislative track and adopting the rest of the Omnibus on previously-converged terms — is the most elegant solution but introduces its own technical complexity. A no-deal outcome, in which the Omnibus does not pass before 2 August 2026, is now a realistic 30% scenario, up from the 10% tail risk seen before 28 April.
What companies should do
Legal advice across major firms — DLA Piper, Ropes & Gray, A&O Shearman, Bird & Bird — converges on a single message: continue planning against the original 2 August 2026 deadline. The Omnibus remains a legislative proposal until adopted; until publication in the Official Journal, only the AI Act as enacted in 2024 applies. Article 5 prohibitions and the AI literacy requirement under Article 4 are already in force since 2 February 2025; general-purpose AI obligations under Articles 50 to 55 since 2 August 2025. The next month determines whether the high-risk regime joins them this summer or eighteen months later.
