Where do AI Act and Data Act overlap?

In 2 article-level pairings recorded in the Fontvera corpus. The table above lists each pair with the specific articles and a plain-language description.

Where do AI Act and Data Act conflict?

In 0 article-level conflicts. The most concrete ones are summarised in the Conflicts explained section.

Which regulation prevails in a conflict between AI Act and Data Act?

Neither regulation resolves the conflict on its face. Conflicts are typically resolved by the more specific provision or by regulator guidance — a legal-judgement call, not a mechanical rule.

§ AI Act · Data Act COMPARISON

AI Act vs Data Act: Where They Overlap and Conflict

2 overlaps, 0 conflicts and 2 gaps mapped between AI Act and Data Act in the Fontvera regulatory corpus.

Summary

AI Act and Data Act both apply across European business activity, but they were drafted at different times with different policy goals. This page summarises every article-level crossref between the two in the Fontvera corpus.

2 overlaps mean the same conduct triggers obligations in both regimes — design controls once, document twice. 0 conflicts mean the two regulations push in opposite directions on a specific question. 2 gaps mean one regulation leaves something on a topic the other addresses.

Who this applies to

Compliance teams who need to map a single control framework onto both AI Act and Data Act.

Compliance deadline

§ Detail

In depth

Summary statistics

Overlaps: 2 · Conflicts: 0 · Gaps: 2

4 article-level crossrefs catalogued between AI Act and Data Act from the Fontvera EU regulatory corpus. Article numbers are verbatim from the underlying obligation_crossrefs table; descriptions are extracted, not paraphrased.

All crossrefs between these regulations

Article (A)	Article (B)	Type	Severity	Description
AI Act Art 10	Data Act Art 18	overlap	low	[entity affected: provider] Both regulations require data holders/providers to handle personal data with specific privacy safeguards, such as anonymization or pseudonymization, when processing or shar
AI Act Art 12	Data Act Art 11	overlap	low	[entity affected: provider] Both regulations impose obligations on providers to maintain technical and organizational measures for data security and integrity, including logging and protection against
AI Act Art ?	Data Act Art ?	gap	medium	[entity affected: provider] Neither regulation explicitly defines the compliance obligations for AI systems that generate synthetic data which is then used as training data for other AI systems, creat
AI Act Art ?	Data Act Art ?	gap	high	[entity affected: public sector body] There is no clear guidance on how public sector bodies should reconcile the Data Act's requirement to erase data when no longer necessary with the AI Act's requir

Overlaps explained

No conflict-type crossrefs were catalogued for this pair, but the 2 overlaps below mean a single control can be designed to satisfy both regulations at once. Plan the controls jointly to avoid duplicate effort:

AI Act Art 10 vs Data Act Art 18 (low severity) — [entity affected: provider] Both regulations require data holders/providers to handle personal data with specific privacy safeguards, such as anonymization or pseudonymization, when processing or sharing data.
AI Act Art 12 vs Data Act Art 11 (low severity) — [entity affected: provider] Both regulations impose obligations on providers to maintain technical and organizational measures for data security and integrity, including logging and protection against unauthorized alteration.

Which regulation takes precedence

EU law does not lay down a universal precedence rule between AI Act and Data Act. In practice three resolution approaches apply: lex specialis (the more specific provision wins when both purport to govern the same conduct); regulator guidance (EDPB, EBA, ESMA and the AI Office have all issued joint readings on overlapping articles — check the most recent applicable opinion); and document the choice (when the regulations leave the call to the controller, the audit defence is your written reasoning, not the regulator's silence). Where the corpus surfaces a conflict rather than an overlap, treat that as an escalation path to legal — not a control-design question.

What this means for your compliance team

Treat the 2 overlaps as design opportunities — one control, two regulatory anchors. Treat the 0 conflicts as escalation paths to legal: the regulations themselves don't resolve them, you do, and you document the reasoning. The 2 gaps point at scenarios where one regulation is silent while the other speaks — assume the regulator who has the explicit rule will win.