High-risk AI transparency? On qualified transparency mandates for oversight bodies under the EU AI Act

The legal opacity of AI technologies has long posed challenges in addressing algorithmic harms, as secrecy enables companies to retain competitive advantages while limiting public scrutiny. In response, ideas such as qualified transparency have been proposed to provide AI accountability within the confidentiality constraints. With the introduction of the EU AI Act, the foundations for human-centric and trustworthy AI have been established. The framework sets regulatory requirements for certain AI technologies and grants oversight bodies broad transparency mandates to enforce the new rules. This paper examines these transparency mandates under the AI Act and argues that it effectively implements qualified transparency, which may potentially mitigate the problem of AI opacity. Nevertheless, several challenges remain in achieving the Act’s policy objectives.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Technology and Regulation
Published
2025-06-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.71265/6bedar76
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.99

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

High-risk AI transparency? On qualified transparency mandates for oversight bodies under the EU AI Act

3 citations
Technology and Regulation
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
12.99
article

High-risk AI transparency? On qualified transparency mandates for oversight bodies under the EU AI Act

article en
3 citations

Abstract

The legal opacity of AI technologies has long posed challenges in addressing algorithmic harms, as secrecy enables companies to retain competitive advantages while limiting public scrutiny. In response, ideas such as qualified transparency have been proposed to provide AI accountability within the confidentiality constraints. With the introduction of the EU AI Act, the foundations for human-centric and trustworthy AI have been established. The framework sets regulatory requirements for certain AI technologies and grants oversight bodies broad transparency mandates to enforce the new rules. This paper examines these transparency mandates under the AI Act and argues that it effectively implements qualified transparency, which may potentially mitigate the problem of AI opacity. Nevertheless, several challenges remain in achieving the Act’s policy objectives.

Technology and RegulationVol. 2025
Lund University (SE)
Lunds Universitet, Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
12.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

High-risk AI transparency? On qualified transparency mandates for oversight bodies under the EU AI Act · Technology and Regulation (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS