Ireland’s Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 marks one of the most significant developments in national technology governance in recent years. Designed to give full domestic effect to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), the Bill establishes the legislative, regulatory, and institutional architecture required for Ireland to supervise, enforce, and support the safe deployment of AI systems across society and the economy.

The Bill will have far‑reaching implications for organisations operating in Ireland, whether they develop, deploy, import, or distribute AI systems. Because the Bill implements the EU AI Act, its effects will touch virtually every sector, from financial services and healthcare to online platforms, manufacturing, retail, recruitment, and professional services.

Below is a practical breakdown of the key impacts.

At its core, the Bill does three things:

1. Creates a new statutory body, the Oifig Intleachta Shaorga na hÉireann (AI Office of Ireland).
2. Implements a distributed regulatory model, incorporating existing specialist regulators as sectoral Market Surveillance Authorities (MSAs).
3. Provides for comprehensive enforcement powers, cooperation mechanisms, and data‑sharing rules aligned with EU law.

A National Authority for a New Regulatory Landscape

The centrepiece of the legislation is the establishment of the AI Office of Ireland, a statutory independent authority under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment.  The AI Office must be operational by 1 August 2026 to fulfil the deadlines set out in the AI Act.

The AI Office of Ireland will be a Market Surveillance Authority in its own right and will act as the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) and central coordinating authority for the central coordinating authority for AI regulation in the State.  It will also act as the national hub for expertise, guidance, and AI literacy.

The Office’s responsibilities range from coordinating national enforcement to promoting AI innovation. It will run or participate in AI regulatory sandboxes, oversee cooperation forums, provide technical expertise to sectoral regulators, and act as Ireland’s conduit to the European Commission and the EU AI Office.

The Office will be governed by an independent Board and supported by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO will be responsible for providing operational leadership and managing the day‑to‑day activities of the Office, playing a central role in ensuring the effective delivery of its statutory functions. Strong provisions on accountability (including appearances before Oireachtas committees), transparency, and conflict‑of‑interest rules will reinforce its independence.

A Distributed Model of AI Regulation

Ireland has chosen a distributed regulatory model, leveraging existing regulatory bodies whose sectoral experience makes them better placed to oversee compliance. This approach was endorsed by Government Decisions of 4 March 2025 and 22 July 2025.

As a result, 13 Market Surveillance Authorities will supervise different classes of AI systems, including:

• Health Products Regulatory Authority – AI in medical devices.
• Central Bank of Ireland – AI used by regulated financial service providers.
• Health & Safety Authority, ComReg, Coimisiún na Meán, Data Protection Commission, and others – covering product‑related, media, digital infrastructure, and public service domains.

For organisations, this shift means that AI oversight will increasingly mirror familiar sector‑specific compliance regimes, with regulators applying more sophisticated enforcement approaches informed by their deep understanding of industry‑level risks, resulting in supervision that is markedly more consistent and far less fragmented than before; while this enhanced coherence may offer greater regulatory certainty, it will also raise the standard of compliance expected across all sectors

These authorities receive substantial new powers under the Bill, including:

• Conducting unannounced inspections and remote audits.
• Requiring access to technical documentation, datasets, and, where necessary, source code.
• Acquiring or reverse‑engineering system samples.
• Ordering withdrawal, recall, or market prohibition of non‑compliant AI systems.
• Coordinating reporting of serious incidents, including those involving harm, critical infrastructure or fundamental rights breaches.

Organisations will need to invest in strengthening their internal capabilities, including developing more robust documentation and control processes, enhancing auditability and full lifecycle management of their AI systems, and establishing clearer, more disciplined governance frameworks for how AI is designed, deployed, and maintained; in short, those that have previously approached AI informally or treated it as an experimental add‑on will now be required to formalise their practices rapidly to meet regulatory expectations.

The Bill also mandates a Cooperation Forum, meeting at least quarterly, to support consistent regulation and avoid fragmentation across sectors.

Regulatory Sandboxes and Innovation Support

A notable feature of the Bill is its forward‑looking treatment of innovation. The AI Office must ensure the establishment, or participation in an EU‑level equivalent, of a national AI regulatory sandbox.

Key features include:

• Priority access for SMEs and start‑ups, free of charge, aligning with Article 62 of the EU AI Act.
• Oversight by the Data Protection Commission for activities involving personal data.
• Collaboration with MSAs to support safe testing and evidence‑based policymaking.

The objective is to balance robust compliance requirements with a supportive environment for emerging AI technologies.

Enforcement Powers and Administrative Sanctions

The Bill provides an extensive enforcement toolkit, reflecting both the EU AI Act and the Market Surveillance Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. Powers include:

• Contravention notices directing operators to remedy breaches.
• Prohibition notices preventing placing or making AI systems available on the market.
• High Court applications for mandatory compliance orders.
• Provision for withdrawal, recall, or destruction of AI systems.
• A full Administrative Sanctions Procedure, featuring adjudicators, appeals mechanisms, settlements, and commitments.

The Central Bank of Ireland is exempt from this general sanctions regime, as it will apply its existing powers under the Central Bank Act 1942 (as amended).

This means organisations must be ready to respond swiftly to regulatory directions, clearly demonstrate the actions they have taken to remedy any issues identified, and accept that continued non‑compliance may lead to progressively stronger enforcement measures, including formal sanctions if breaches persist.

Data Protection, Confidentiality, and Information‑Sharing

Recognising the sensitivity of AI‑related information, especially technical documentation and personal data, the Bill incorporates:

• Stricter confidentiality obligations under Article 78 of the EU AI Act.
• Requirements for adequate cybersecurity measures in all competent authorities.
• Legal bases for MSAs and the AI Office to share personal data on a strictly necessary and proportionate basis, including with
• An Garda Síochána,
• the European Commission, and
• Fundamental Rights Authorities.
• Compliance with the Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019 and the GDPR.

These measures aim to build public trust while balancing transparency, enforcement needs, and privacy protections.

Handling Serious Incidents and High‑Risk Systems

For high‑risk AI systems, the Bill aligns closely with Articles 73–80 of the EU AI Act. It requires:

• Prompt reporting of serious incidents by providers.
• Coordination with sectoral authorities, the AI Office, the Commission, and Fundamental Rights Authorities.
• Formal evaluation procedures where systems may present risks or be misclassified as non‑high‑risk.
• Temporary authorisation mechanisms for exceptional circumstances (e.g., urgent public‑safety needs).

This introduces new internal responsibilities for organisations, requiring them to detect and analyse failures in their AI systems, establish clear internal reporting and triage procedures to ensure incidents are escalated appropriately, and maintain open and timely communication channels with regulators; moreover, failure to report a serious incident may itself be treated as a breach, carrying potential regulatory consequences.

A Strategic Framework for AI Governance

In addition to enforcement, the Bill embeds strategic governance:

• The AI Office must publish annual reports, audited accounts, and a three‑year strategy statement.
• Cooperation agreements between competent authorities are encouraged, with publication requirements for transparency.
• A National Register of prohibited AI practices and high‑risk systems will support monitoring and public visibility.

Conclusion: Positioning Ireland as a Leader in EU AI Regulation

The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 represents a decisive step toward embedding robust, future‑proof AI governance in Ireland. Its approach reflects a clear policy direction:

• Deep sectoral expertise supported by strong central coordination.
• Firm legal powers matched with innovation‑friendly frameworks.
• High transparency standards, rigorous accountability, and alignment with EU‑level structures.

Organisations can expect rising compliance costs, heavier documentation demands, and more extensive legal and technical audit requirements as regulatory expectations increase; however, these obligations are balanced by clear advantages, including harmonisation with EU‑wide standards, reduced legal uncertainty, greater consumer and investor confidence, and a more level competitive playing field in which non‑compliant operators cannot gain an unfair advantage.

In a country hosting many of the world’s largest technology companies, this legislation will significantly influence how AI is deployed, supervised, and trusted, not just in Ireland, but potentially across Europe.

Contributor: Kieran Harte