An Expert Q&A with Matthieu Quiniou on the Evolving Legal Landscape

As the digital economy continues its rapid evolution, the intersection of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies presents unprecedented legal challenges for innovators and entrepreneurs. From the implementation of the EU AI Act to the complex IP considerations surrounding AI-generated NFTs, companies operating at this technological convergence face a maze of regulatory requirements that demand specialized expertise.

In this comprehensive Q&A, we explore three critical areas where blockchain and AI technologies intersect with European legal frameworks. Matthieu Quiniou, Partner at d&a partners—the leading independent law firm dedicated to tech and blockchain entrepreneurs—shares his insights drawn from his dual role as an AI expert at the Council of Europe's CEPEJ and his extensive experience advising clients across the NFT, metaverse, and digital asset ecosystems.

d&a partners has established itself as a pioneer in applying business law to blockchain technologies since 2017, with the firm's partners having advised over 40% of French ICOs that obtained regulatory approval from the AMF. This track record of innovation and regulatory expertise uniquely positions the firm to address the complex compliance challenges facing today's AI-blockchain hybrid projects.

The following discussion addresses three fundamental questions that every tech entrepreneur and legal professional should consider: How do blockchain companies ensure compliance with the EU AI Act when developing AI-powered cryptocurrency applications? What are the key legal frameworks governing cross-border NFT and metaverse projects? And how should companies protect their intellectual property when developing blockchain applications that incorporate AI technologies?

These questions reflect the real-world challenges facing companies like Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and countless DeFi protocols that are increasingly integrating AI capabilities into their blockchain infrastructures. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve and clarify, understanding these intersections becomes critical for maintaining competitive advantage while ensuring legal compliance in the European market.

Question 1: European AI Act and Blockchain Integration Compliance "Given your role as AI expert at the CEPEJ of the Council of Europe and your coordination of the AI Advisory Office, how should blockchain companies approach compliance with the EU AI Act when developing AI-powered cryptocurrency or DeFi applications? What specific considerations arise when AI systems interact with blockchain infrastructure?"

This is a highly relevant yet still underexplored question within the blockchain ecosystem. Many blockchain projects today integrate AI technologies — whether through hybrid AI-blockchain infrastructures such as Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, Ocean Protocol or Virtuals Protocol, or through the use of AI for algorithmic trading, arbitrage in DeFi, or even generative content (notably in meme coin ecosystems and NFT generation).

While the AI Act does not explicitly mention blockchain, and financial services are not classified per se as a high-risk sector under the Regulation, the obligations imposed on general-purpose AI models (GPAI) and foundation models apply fully to projects leveraging such technologies within blockchain infrastructures.

Particular care should be given to transparency requirements, risk management obligations, and human oversight mechanisms, especially when AI is deployed in decentralized or partially autonomous environments. For example, an AI system integrated with smart contracts could theoretically receive micropayments via blockchain and autonomously reinvest them, for instance, to access greater computing power or API-based services, creating a quasi-autonomous agent operating on-chain. This type of setup raises important compliance challenges regarding traceability, accountability, and registration obligations under the AI Act, especially for deployers based in or targeting the EU market.

For blockchain companies, a critical first step is to classify the AI system involved under the AI Act’s taxonomy (prohibited, high-risk, GPAI, or minimal-risk), and ensure that responsibilities are clearly allocated, including in decentralized governance models such as DAOs, which are still legally ambiguous under EU law.

Question 2: Cross-Border NFT and Metaverse Legal Frameworks "With your extensive experience supporting NFT projects across communication, video games, metaverse, art, and luxury sectors, how do you advise clients on navigating the varying international legal frameworks for NFTs and digital assets? What are the key compliance challenges when launching NFT projects across EU and international markets?"

The key compliance challenges surrounding NFTs are primarily linked to intellectual property rights, licensing terms, and, in certain use cases, gambling and financial regulations. While NFTs are generally excluded from the scope of the MiCA Regulation (provided they are truly unique and non-fungible), this exclusion is not absolute. If an NFT functions as a financial instrument or falls within the broader definition of a crypto-asset, MiCA may apply, triggering obligations such as the publication of a white paper and compliance with token issuance rules. Moreover, any secondary market platform (exchange) enabling NFT trading may need to be licensed as a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) under MiCA.

From an IP perspective, the ownership of an NFT does not imply ownership of underlying intellectual property rights. This is a frequent source of confusion. I have participated to a report ((https://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/nous-connaitre/organisation-du-ministere/Conseil-superieur-de-la-propriete-litteraire-et-artistique-CSPLA/travaux-et-publications-du-cspla/missions-du-cspla/le-cspla-publie-le-rapport-de-mission-relatif-a-la-charte-de-bonnes-pratiques-contractuelles-en-matiere-de-nft) published by the French Ministry of Culture’s CSPLA (Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique), to clarifying best practices for NFT-linked contracts/licenses. The key recommendation is to ensure that licensing terms are expressly defined, ideally embedded within the NFT metadata, and aligned with applicable national laws. This is particularly important in sectors like art, gaming, and luxury goods, where brand integrity and copyright enforcement are central.

Cross-border NFT projects must also anticipate divergent interpretations of consumer protection, data privacy (e.g., GDPR), and digital asset classification across jurisdictions, which require tailored contractual and compliance strategies.

Question 3: Intellectual Property Strategy for Blockchain and AI Convergence "Drawing from your expertise in IP law and your academic role in Digital Transitions, how should companies protect their intellectual property when developing blockchain applications that incorporate AI technologies? What patent and copyright strategies do you recommend for innovations at the intersection of AI and distributed ledger technologies?"

At the intersection of AI and blockchain, intellectual property protection strategies must address three key dimensions: (1) ownership and originality of outputs, (2) licensing risks, and (3) liability for malfunctioning or non-compliant systems.

First, AI-generated content, including code, artwork, or text, may not be eligible for copyright protection if human creative input is insufficient. In such cases, I generally recommend that companies consider registering semi-figurative trademarks, which offer protection for the branding and visual identity associated with NFT collections or AI-generated assets, particularly in the context of meme culture or metaverse applications.

Second, companies must exercise due diligence when using pre-trained models or integrating third-party datasets, especially if these involve open-source components. Certain open-source licenses (e.g., GPL or AGPL) may carry “copyleft” or “contamination” clauses, which could affect proprietary blockchain codebases or smart contracts. A tailored legal audit of the license stack is essential before commercial deployment.

Third, if an AI system contributes to the creation or execution of autonomous smart contracts, companies may incur contractual or tort liability in the event of system failure, especially in DeFi or tokenized finance contexts. As such, I recommend incorporating strong disclaimer clauses, audit documentation, and, where possible, filing patent applications for novel algorithmic structures or system architectures that reflect a technical contribution.

Companies should also monitor regulatory developments in the EU and beyond concerning the protectability of AI-generated inventions, which may evolve in response to the growing legal vacuum surrounding algorithmic creativity and machine authorship.

Want to contribute to our Q&A series? If you're a legal expert in the web3/AI space and would like to share your expertise by joining our Q&A series, please reach out to hi@databirdjournal.com