EU AI Act Article 4: Navigating AI Literacy Compliance

On February 2, 2025, a novel obligation under the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) took effect, requiring providers and deployers of AI systems to ensure sufficient AI literacy among their staff and “other persons” acting on their behalf. This mandate, enshrined in Article 4 of the AI Act, applies universally to all AI systems, irrespective of their risk classification, and extends to entities operating outside the EU if their AI systems or outputs affect EU users (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 1; William Fry, 8). With enforcement by national market-surveillance authorities slated to begin on August 3, 2026, organizations face a critical imperative to establish comprehensive AI literacy programs and meticulously document their efforts.

Defining AI Literacy and Its Universal Scope

Article 4 of the AI Act stipulates that both providers—those placing AI systems on the EU market—and deployers—entities using AI systems under their authority—“shall ensure, to the extent of their best effort,” that their personnel possess adequate AI literacy (AI Act Service Desk, 3). This duty is technology-neutral, meaning it applies across all types of AI, from generative models to predictive analytics, and is not confined solely to high-risk systems (Cranium.ai, 4).

What Constitutes “AI Literacy”?

The European Commission's Q&A defines AI literacy as the essential skills, knowledge, and understanding required to deploy AI systems effectively and ethically, and to assess their impacts (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 1). This encompasses several critical dimensions:

• Technical understanding: Grasping how AI functions, its capabilities, inherent limitations, and potential failure modes.
• Legal and ethical awareness: Knowledge of applicable laws, including the AI Act itself, and fundamental ethical principles such as non-discrimination and the protection of fundamental rights.
• Context-specific competence: Understanding the organization's specific role (provider or deployer), the risk level of the AI systems in use, and the requirements for appropriate human oversight (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 5).
• Critical thinking: The ability to question AI outputs, recognize potential biases, and make informed decisions regarding human intervention (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 6).

Crucially, this requirement extends beyond technical staff to include managers, project managers, sales teams, and end-users, with training tailored to their specific roles (Cranium.ai, 4).

The “Other Persons” Mandate and Extraterritorial Reach

The obligation to ensure AI literacy is not limited to direct employees. The term “other persons” encompasses a broad range of individuals, including contractors, service providers, temporary agency workers, self-employed persons, partners, and certain clients (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 7). For instance, a marketing agency utilizing an AI-powered tool on behalf of a client must ensure its personnel understand the tool's limitations and legal obligations.

Furthermore, the AI Act possesses extraterritorial reach. Article 2 clarifies that providers and deployers established in third countries are subject to the Act if their AI systems are placed on the EU market or their output is used within the EU (William Fry, 8). Non-EU providers of high-risk or general-purpose AI models must appoint an authorised representative in the EU to ensure compliance (William Fry, 9). This means companies globally that offer AI-enabled services to EU clients must prepare for Article 4 obligations.

Implementing Risk-Based Training Programs

Given the broad scope of Article 4, organizations must develop comprehensive, yet proportionate, AI literacy programs. The Commission's guidance outlines four minimum expectations:

• A general understanding of AI concepts, capabilities, and limitations.
• Clarity on the organization's role (provider, deployer, or both).
• Awareness of the context of use and risk level of specific AI systems.
• Tailoring of content depth and complexity to the target audience (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 5).

Core Components and Proportionality

AI literacy training should be risk-based, with more extensive and detailed instruction for high-risk AI systems and more foundational awareness for minimal-risk applications (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 5). As Ropes & Gray notes, there is no one-size-fits-all solution; compliance hinges on specific context (Ropes & Gray, 11). For high-risk applications in sectors such as healthcare, finance, or critical infrastructure, training must integrate knowledge of relevant Annex III requirements, risk management, data governance, and human-oversight obligations. Conversely, low-risk tools may only necessitate basic awareness and guidance on human-in-the-loop processes.

Flexible Training Formats and Continuous Learning

The AI Act does not mandate formal training exclusively. Other initiatives, such as workshops, mentoring, and self-study, can contribute to AI literacy (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 6). However, relying solely on user manuals or ad-hoc instructions is insufficient. Effective programs often combine multiple methods:

• Formal training programs, including online courses and classroom sessions.
• Role-specific workshops tailored for legal teams, developers, or sales personnel.
• Supervised practical experience with AI systems and case-study simulations.
• Peer-to-peer learning and communities of practice.

Law firms advise designing modular programs that differentiate between entry-level awareness and advanced specialization (Cuatrecasas, 12). Training should be continuous, with periodic refreshers to account for evolving AI technologies and regulatory updates.

Documentation and Enforcement Considerations

While Article 4 does not require formal testing or certification of employees, organizations must maintain internal records of the measures taken to ensure AI literacy (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 13). This documentation is crucial for demonstrating “best effort” during audits or investigations.

Essential Documentation and Contractual Updates

Key documentation should include:

• An inventory of all AI systems used, classified by risk level.
• Identified target groups (staff, contractors, clients) and assigned training modules.
• Dates, duration, and content of all training sessions or initiatives.
• Evidence of participant completion or attendance.
• Records of feedback and continuous improvement actions.

Proper record-keeping not only supports regulatory compliance but also provides a defense against potential private litigation, where inadequate training could lead to claims of negligence (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 2). Organizations should also update contracts with service providers to ensure that subcontractors using AI on their behalf meet AI literacy requirements (Cuatrecasas, 17).

Enforcement and Penalties

Enforcement of Article 4 falls primarily to national market-surveillance authorities (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 2). While Article 4 does not carry standalone fines, a failure to ensure AI literacy can act as an aggravating factor when authorities assess violations of other AI Act obligations (Cranium.ai, 4). Penalties for high-risk systems can reach up to €15 million or 3% of global annual turnover, while prohibited practices can incur fines of up to €35 million or 7% (Cranium.ai, 4). Lack of AI literacy could therefore significantly increase the severity of fines or lead to orders to halt operations.

The Evolving Landscape: Digital Omnibus and AI Office Guidance

The AI Office, established by the European Commission, is actively developing resources to support AI literacy. It maintains a living repository of practices from industry and public authorities, offering inspiration for program design (Digital Strategy, 18; Digital Strategy, 19). The AI Office also provides webinars, AI Pact events, and Q&A updates (AI Literacy - Questions & Answers, 20).

Proposed Amendments and Ongoing Monitoring

In November 2025, the Commission published a Digital Omnibus proposal that could significantly alter Article 4. This proposal seeks to remove the direct obligation on providers and deployers, instead tasking Member States and the Commission with encouraging AI literacy through broader initiatives (Kennedys Law, 22). While this shift has drawn criticism from bodies like the European Data Protection Board for potentially weakening preventive safeguards, these amendments are still under negotiation as of February 2026 (Kennedys Law, 22; JDSupra, 23). Therefore, organizations must continue to prepare for Article 4 as currently enacted, while diligently monitoring legislative developments.

Key Takeaways

• AI Literacy is a mandatory, universal, and extraterritorial obligation under Article 4 of the EU AI Act, effective February 2, 2025, with enforcement beginning August 3, 2026.
• The requirement applies to all staff and “other persons” acting on behalf of providers and deployers, demanding a comprehensive understanding of AI's technical, legal, and ethical dimensions.
• Training programs must be risk-based and proportionate to the AI systems in use, with robust documentation of efforts to demonstrate “best effort” compliance.
• While no formal testing or dedicated AI officer is mandated, inadequate AI literacy can significantly aggravate penalties for other AI Act violations.
• Organizations must proactively develop, implement, and continuously update their AI literacy programs, while closely tracking potential legislative changes from proposals like the Digital Omnibus.

What Comes Next

The immediate future demands a strategic and proactive approach from organizations operating within or serving the EU market. The full enforcement of Article 4 on August 3, 2026, will mark a pivotal moment, shifting the focus from preparation to demonstrable compliance. Organizations that have invested in well-documented, risk-based AI literacy programs will be better positioned to navigate regulatory scrutiny and mitigate potential liabilities. The ongoing legislative debate surrounding the Digital Omnibus proposal underscores the dynamic nature of AI regulation, necessitating continuous monitoring and adaptability. Ultimately, fostering a culture of AI literacy is not merely a compliance exercise but a fundamental step towards responsible AI governance, enhancing operational resilience and safeguarding trust in an increasingly AI-driven economy.