Will the 49ers win Super Bowl LXII?

What makes this acceleration consequential isn’t the six months itself — it’s what the compressed window does to compliance budgets. Most US firms scoped their EU AI Act programs against the original 2027 enforcement date; pulling it to mid-2026 turns a planned, phased build-out into a scramble, and the ~$2.1B industry cost estimate assumes work meant to span two years now lands in one.

But the skeptics point to something the “tougher rules” framing glosses over: the obligations that actually bite apply to a narrow band of genuinely high-risk systems — biometric ID, critical infrastructure, hiring and credit scoring. General-purpose and low-risk tools, which are most of the market by volume, face far lighter transparency duties. The headline timeline moved; the scope did not.

Enforcement capacity is the true wildcard. The EU AI Office is still hiring against an expanding mandate, and national market-surveillance authorities vary widely in readiness. A timeline that outruns the regulator’s ability to audit could produce selective, headline-driven enforcement rather than the uniform bar the Act promises.

For now, the rational move mirrors what the sharpest compliance teams are already doing: inventory which systems fall in the high-risk tier, treat the mid-2026 date as real, but expect the first enforcement wave to target the most visible deployers. Build for the rule as written; plan for enforcement that arrives unevenly.