Regulatory news and changes · No. 07 / 13
Which EU AI Act obligations matter to US marketing teams?
Last updated
Assess the organisation’s role and the content it publishes. US headquarters should not be used as a substitute for an EU territorial-scope assessment. For work found to be in scope, distinguish operating an AI system from using one to publish content.
Article 50 covers several different transparency situations. Its provisions include informing people about certain AI interactions, machine-readable marking of generated content, disclosure of deepfakes, and disclosure of certain AI-generated public-interest text. These are not one universal labelling rule. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)
| Activity | Relevant distinction | Recommended control |
|---|---|---|
| Providing a generative AI system | Provider-side marking and detection requirements | Obtain system-specific documentation and a timetable from the provider |
| Publishing synthetic or manipulated audiovisual material | Deepfake disclosure is a separate question from ordinary editing | Review the asset and proposed disclosure before distribution |
| Publishing AI-generated public-interest text | Human review/editorial control and editorial responsibility matter | Keep approval records and identify the responsible publisher |
| Monitoring a third-party answer engine | Observation is not the same activity as publishing the observed answer | Separately assess any later reuse in advertising or content |
The first three distinctions follow Article 50 and the Commission’s guidance; the fourth is our recommended workflow separation. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)
Must every AI-assisted B2B article carry an AI label?
That conclusion is too broad. Article 50’s text-publication provision concerns informing the public on matters of public interest. It includes an exception where the content has undergone human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility. Do not assume either that every product page qualifies or that adding a reviewer’s name automatically satisfies the exception. (ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu)
Recommended publishing record: sources checked, substantive revisions, factual approval, responsible editor, publication date and disclosure decision. This creates evidence of an editorial process rather than an unsupported claim that content was “human reviewed”.
Is the transparency code compulsory?
The underlying obligations are legal requirements; signing the Code of Practice is voluntary. The Commission describes the code as a recognised route for demonstrating compliance, not a replacement for the Act. Avoid supplier statements that equate signing the code with universal compliance across every product and use. (digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu)
Sources cited on this page
- ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-50
- digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-ai-generated-content