All news
Regulation July 3, 2026 6 min

71% of DPOs want the AI Act in their remit. 27% say they know it. 85% have never had AI training

The CNIL-AFCDP survey portrays a profession taking on a responsibility no law gave it, and without the mandate that protects it

TL;DR for the DPO

Three numbers and a consequence. 71% of DPOs want the AI Act in their remit and 55% already have it; only 27% say they know the text well and 85% have never had AI training; 85% of internal DPOs do the job part-time. The AI Act does not mention the DPO anywhere: whoever takes it on does so without the Article 38 GDPR mandate that protects their independence.

Who DPOs are in 2026

The survey is the fifth edition of the Observatory, running since 2018 through the French general delegation for employment and vocational training and the CNIL, in partnership with the AFCDP. This year's research was carried out by the Afpa and published on 3 July 2026.

  • 79% of DPOs act as internal DPOs
  • 54% come from fields other than law and IT
  • 85% of internal and pooled DPOs work part-time
  • 45% have more than six years of data protection experience
  • the presence of men and women in the role is balanced

That 85% part-time figure is the one to keep in view while reading all the others: a second regulation is being placed on a function performed part-time.

The AI is already there, the governance is not

70%
of organisations use or plan to use AI

Among them, 81% use generative AI systems and two thirds buy the solution from outside suppliers, against 22% who build it in-house. Usage grows with the size of the organisation. But governance lags well behind: fewer than a quarter of organisations have a formal AI strategy or policy, fewer than a third have run staff awareness work or adopted an AI charter, and only 31% have started preparing for the AI Act.

The point nobody puts in the headline

Two thirds buy AI from outside suppliers. That means for most organisations AI compliance is not decided in-house: it is decided by reading a supplier's contract and documentation. That is exactly the territory of Article 28 and documented instructions, not new territory at all.

The 44-point gap

Here the survey gets uncomfortable. 55% of DPOs say the AI Act is already within their area of responsibility and 71% want the role formally extended to it. But only 27% say they have a good level of knowledge of the text, and 85% have not yet followed any specific AI training. More than half say they are often or systematically involved in AI projects.

44points
point gap between those who want the AI Act and those who say they know it

The CNIL puts it plainly: DPOs are broadly equipped to assess the GDPR aspects of AI, but they often lack tools and methods for the AI Act aspects. And it adds something worth more than all the percentages: the AI Act does not mention the DPO, so the role is not imposed in internal governance chains.

Taking a role without the mandate that protects it

This is where it is worth pausing. The DPO has a written mandate: Article 38 GDPR guarantees reporting to the highest level, no instructions on the exercise of the tasks, and no dismissal for performing them. That mandate covers the Article 39 tasks, that is the GDPR. It does not cover the AI Act, which does not cite the DPO.

And there is a further risk

Article 38(6) forbids the DPO tasks that create a conflict of interest. If the DPO becomes the person who designs and builds AI governance - picks the systems, writes the procedures, classifies the risks - they then end up checking their own work. It is the same reason a DPO should not be the head of IT: the role that builds cannot be the role that verifies.

What to do now, in practice

1) Put in writing, in one line, whether the AI Act is in your mandate or not: doing it in fact without it being written is the worst of both worlds. 2) Separate the two hats: advising and monitoring GDPR compliance of AI systems are your statutory tasks; AI Act compliance is an additional engagement that must be conferred, paid and recorded. 3) If the client buys AI from a supplier - and two times out of three they do - the real work is contractual: documented instructions, model information, the supplier's role. 4) Ask for training in writing: Article 38(2) obliges the controller to provide the necessary resources, and with 85% of colleagues untrained on AI you are in good company asking. 5) If you are part-time like 85% of internal DPOs, quantify the extra hours before accepting the widened remit, not after.

Official source:CNIL - The DPO profession in the age of artificial intelligence: survey results published (3 July 2026)

Looking for a workspace for your DPO work?

DPO Workspace is built by a certified DPO. 30-day free trial.

Start free

Related articles

Regulation
nullathe decision on a worker taken by the algorithm alone, from 23 October

A dismissal decided by the algorithm is void: from 23 October in Italy

Published in Official Gazette no. 234 of 8 October 2026 and in force since 23 October, decree no. 179/2026 provides that final decisions on the employment relationship cannot be based solely on automated processing, that the worker may request an understandable explanation, and that decisions taken in breach are void. In parallel, AI systems affecting work organisation enter the risk assessment under Article 28 of decree 81/2008. For a DPO this is the rare case where the consequence is not economic but civil, and it changes how the check is framed.

Oct 08, 2026New 8 min
Regulation
3signals that make notification due

Poland's UODO: not every breach must be notified. Public-register data on one side, PESEL, health and financial data on the other

If an invoicing system leaks only a sole trader's name, business name, tax number and registered address, already public in the business register, risk is normally unlikely. If it also leaks the national ID number, purchase details revealing health, or financial data, notification is due. Either way, the decision goes into the internal register.

Oct 05, 2026New 5 min
Regulation
120days to charge you, not to fine you

The 120 days are not the deadline to fine you: they are the deadline to charge you

Anyone who built an appeal on the authority's delay should re-read the calendar. The Court clarifies three things: the complaint procedure and the sanctioning procedure are autonomous, so overrunning the nine-to-twelve months on the complaint does not extinguish the power to fine; the 120 days are for notifying the charge, not for imposing the fine; and they run from the «definitive finding», which is not the first notice but the moment the authority can assess every element — including the hearing of your side. After the charge, only the five-year limitation period remains.

Sep 20, 2026 7 min