We use essential cookies and, with your consent, analytics to improve LearnWize. Learn more
Decision guide for heads of legal
Your head of legal can teach the AI literacy session herself next month, or set up a programme that keeps working long after that afternoon is over.
The internal session costs more than it looks. Legal's hours are real cost, even without an invoice: preparing slides, running the room, answering questions that repeat department by department. And what's left afterwards is an attendance list: who sat in the room in month X. It says nothing about what a new joiner saw in month Y, or whether the content still matched the rules in month Z. A structured programme keeps a different kind of record: every assignment logged with answers and the rule version it was set against, so it can be replayed later, not just an attendance list from one afternoon.
A single internal session by legal is genuinely the right call in specific circumstances: a small organisation working from one location, low-risk AI use with no complex sector scenarios to cover, and a legal team with real appetite for standing in front of a room and teaching. It also works well layered on top of a programme rather than instead of it: legal opens with the kick-off session that sets the tone and answers the first round of questions, and the programme carries the depth that follows risk rather than job title, new joiners, and refreshed content from there.
Article 4 of the EU AI Act has applied since 2 February 2025, and since 27 July 2026 it explicitly asks providers and deployers to take measures that support AI literacy, taking context into account. It does not require guaranteeing a specific individual outcome, and there is no prescribed course format, number of hours, test, certificate, or AI officer. There's also no specific automatic fine tied to it. What the law asks for is measures suited to context: role, sector, and risk. That argues for depth that varies by risk and sector, not by job title, rather than one generic session repeated department by department, whichever team happens to teach it.
AI Act evidence routes
Focused pages per question: from mandatory Article 4 literacy and training records to sector evidence and an audit-ready dossier.
AI literacy train-the-trainer for HR, L&D, and internal trainers, with training design, scenarios, certification, and evidence reporting.
View routeGive reviewers, DPOs, and compliance teams a clear view of who understands which AI risks.
View routeClassroom AI training or e-learning for Article 4? Compare reach, evidence and depth, and see why a hybrid model usually works best for AI literacy.
View routeA standalone AI course is not Article 4 evidence. See the difference with a role-based program that links training to role, risk, and demonstrable evidence.
View route