AI Act vs GDPR — How They Overlap for AI Systems

Most AI systems process personal data — which means they are subject to both the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) and the GDPR (Regulation 2016/679). These are not alternatives; they stack. An AI recruitment tool is high-risk under the AI Act AND requires a DPIA under GDPR. Understanding where they overlap and where they differ is critical for compliance.

The Problem

The AI Act and GDPR were designed by different teams with different goals: the AI Act regulates AI systems by risk level, the GDPR protects personal data by purpose. But most AI systems sit at the intersection. Developers need to navigate both, and existing tools treat them separately — one tool for AI Act classification, another for GDPR assessment.

Gibs indexes both regulations — the AI Act across 836 chunks covering all 113 articles, 13 annexes, and 180 recitals, and the GDPR across 276 chunks. Cross-regulation queries return cited obligations from both in a single API call.

Side-by-Side Comparison

| Aspect | AI Act | GDPR | |--------|--------|------| | Scope | AI systems placed on EU market or used in EU | Processing of personal data of EU residents | | Risk approach | 4 risk categories (prohibited, high-risk, limited, minimal) | Risk-based approach for DPIAs | | Key obligation trigger | AI system classification | Personal data processing | | Conformity assessment | Required for high-risk AI (Article 43) | DPIA required for high-risk processing (Article 35) | | Transparency | Article 50: disclose AI interaction, deepfakes | Articles 13-14: inform about data processing | | Human oversight | Article 14: required for high-risk AI | Article 22: right not to be subject to solely automated decisions | | Documentation | Technical documentation (Article 11) | Records of processing (Article 30) | | Penalties | Up to 35M EUR or 7% of turnover | Up to 20M EUR or 4% of turnover | | Enforcement | AI Office + national authorities | National DPAs | | In force | Phased: Feb 2025 to Aug 2027 | Since May 25, 2018 |

Where They Overlap

Most AI systems that process personal data face dual obligations. These are the key areas of intersection.

Automated Decision-Making

GDPR Article 22 gives individuals the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions with legal or significant effects. The AI Act adds requirements for human oversight (Article 14) and risk management (Article 9) for high-risk systems. Both apply simultaneously — a credit scoring AI must satisfy GDPR Article 22 safeguards AND AI Act Article 14 human oversight requirements.

Transparency

GDPR requires informing data subjects about automated processing (Articles 13-14), including the logic involved and the significance and envisaged consequences. The AI Act adds disclosure requirements for AI interaction (Article 50) and detailed technical documentation (Article 11). A chatbot processing personal data must disclose it is AI under the AI Act AND explain what data it processes under the GDPR.

Impact Assessments

GDPR requires Data Protection Impact Assessments for high-risk processing (Article 35). The AI Act requires fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk AI deployed by public bodies and certain private entities (Article 27). Article 27(4) of the AI Act explicitly allows the fundamental rights impact assessment to be performed alongside and combined with the DPIA required under GDPR Article 35.

Data Quality

GDPR requires personal data to be accurate and kept up to date (Article 5(1)(d)). The AI Act requires training, validation, and testing datasets to meet specific quality criteria including relevance, representativeness, and freedom from errors (Article 10). When training data includes personal data, both sets of requirements apply to the same dataset.

Data Minimization vs Data Governance

GDPR Article 5(1)(c) requires data minimization — collect only what is necessary. AI Act Article 10 requires datasets that are sufficiently representative and free from bias, which may require more data, not less. Navigating this tension requires understanding both obligations precisely.

Check Both With Gibs

import gibs

client = gibs.Client(api_key="sk-gibs-...")

# Cross-regulation query — one call, both regulations
result = client.check(
    question="What are the compliance requirements for an AI system that processes personal data for credit scoring?",
    regulations=["ai_act", "gdpr"]
)

print(result.answer)
# Returns obligations from both regulations:
# AI Act: high-risk (Annex III Area 5(b)), conformity assessment,
#         risk management, human oversight
# GDPR: legal basis required (Art 6), DPIA likely required (Art 35),
#        Art 22 automated decision-making rights apply

print(result.sources)
# Sources clearly attributed to each regulation

import { Gibs } from '@gibs-dev/sdk'

const gibs = new Gibs({ apiKey: 'sk-gibs-...' })

const result = await gibs.check({
  question: 'What transparency obligations apply to an AI system that screens job applicants using their personal data?',
  regulations: ['ai_act', 'gdpr']
})
// AI Act: Article 50 disclosure, Article 13 transparency for deployers,
//         Annex III Area 4 high-risk obligations
// GDPR: Articles 13-14 right to information, Article 22 safeguards,
//        Article 35 DPIA

curl -X POST https://api.gibs.dev/v1/check \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-gibs-..." \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"question": "How do AI Act data governance requirements interact with GDPR data minimization?", "regulations": ["ai_act", "gdpr"]}'

Gibs returns cited obligations from both regulations in a single response, with clear attribution of which requirement comes from which regulation. Every citation traces to a specific article number in EUR-Lex.

Real-World Scenarios

AI Recruitment Tool

An AI system that screens CVs and ranks job applicants:

• AI Act: High-risk under Annex III, Area 4 (employment). Requires conformity assessment (Article 43), risk management system (Article 9), human oversight (Article 14), technical documentation (Article 11).
• GDPR: Requires a legal basis for processing candidate personal data (Article 6), must provide information to candidates (Articles 13-14), DPIA likely required (Article 35), Article 22 rights apply to automated decisions affecting candidates.
• Overlap: Both require transparency about automated processing. Both require human involvement in decisions. Documentation requirements under both must be satisfied.

AI-Powered Customer Service Chatbot

A chatbot that handles customer queries using personal account data:

• AI Act: Limited risk under Article 50. Must disclose to users they are interacting with an AI system.
• GDPR: Requires legal basis for processing personal data (Article 6), must inform users about data processing (Articles 13-14), data minimization applies (Article 5(1)(c)).
• Overlap: Transparency under both regulations. The AI Act disclosure is simpler but adds to existing GDPR information obligations.

AI Credit Scoring System

An AI system that assesses creditworthiness for loan decisions:

• AI Act: High-risk under Annex III, Area 5(b) (access to essential private services). Full high-risk obligations apply.
• GDPR: Automated decision-making with legal effects (Article 22), DPIA required (Article 35), right to obtain human intervention and contest the decision.
• Overlap: Both require human oversight of automated decisions. Both require documented risk assessment. Penalties can apply under both regulations for the same system.

Who This Is For

• AI developers building systems that process personal data and need to understand both regulatory frameworks
• DPOs assessing AI deployments alongside existing GDPR compliance programs
• Compliance teams running dual AI Act and GDPR assessments without separate tools
• Legal teams mapping the regulatory overlap for AI products entering the EU market

Gibs gives you the regulatory knowledge base for both regulations — structured, cited, and programmable. Every answer traces to specific articles, not vague summaries.

Try It Now

Free tier: 50 requests per month, no credit card required.

Get your API key | Read the docs | Python SDK | npm package

FAQ

Does the AI Act replace GDPR for AI systems?

No. The AI Act explicitly states it applies "without prejudice to" the GDPR (Article 2(7)). Both regulations apply simultaneously. The AI Act regulates the AI system itself — its classification, risk management, and conformity. The GDPR regulates the personal data processing within that system. Neither supersedes the other.

Do I need both a conformity assessment and a DPIA?

Potentially yes. High-risk AI systems under the AI Act require a conformity assessment (Article 43). If the same system processes personal data in a way likely to result in high risk to individuals, GDPR requires a DPIA (Article 35). Article 27(4) of the AI Act allows the fundamental rights impact assessment to be combined with the DPIA, which can reduce duplication.

How does GDPR Article 22 interact with AI Act Article 14?

GDPR Article 22 gives individuals the right not to be subject to purely automated decisions with legal or significant effects, including the right to obtain human intervention and contest the decision. AI Act Article 14 requires high-risk AI systems to be designed so that they can be effectively overseen by natural persons. Both apply — the AI Act does not weaken GDPR protections. In practice, the AI Act's human oversight requirements may help satisfy GDPR Article 22 safeguards.

Which regulation has higher penalties?

The AI Act: up to 35 million EUR or 7% of global annual turnover for prohibited practices (Article 99). GDPR: up to 20 million EUR or 4% of global annual turnover (Article 83). Both penalties can apply for the same system — a non-compliant AI system processing personal data could face enforcement under both regulations simultaneously.

How do data quality requirements differ?

GDPR Article 5(1)(d) requires personal data to be accurate and kept up to date. AI Act Article 10 goes further for training data — requiring datasets to be relevant, sufficiently representative, free from errors, and complete in view of the intended purpose. When training data includes personal data, both standards apply, and the AI Act's requirements are generally more demanding.

Can Gibs check both regulations in one query?

Yes. Gibs supports cross-regulation queries across all indexed regulations (AI Act, GDPR, DORA). A single API call returns cited obligations from multiple regulations with clear source attribution — each obligation identifies whether it comes from the AI Act, GDPR, or both.

Does Gibs cover DORA as well?

Yes. Gibs currently covers the EU AI Act, GDPR, and DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act). For AI systems in the financial sector, all three regulations may apply — the AI Act for AI system obligations, GDPR for personal data processing, and DORA for ICT risk management and operational resilience. Gibs handles cross-regulation queries across all three.