EU AI Act Article 50: Which AI Disclosures You Owe, and When

On 2 August 2026, Article 50 of the EU AI Act became applicable. It is the Act's transparency layer. Its rules make sure people know when they are talking to a machine. They also make sure people know when content is AI-generated, and when a system reads their emotions or biometric traits. The Digital Omnibus deferred the high-risk regime's timeline, but it did not delay Article 50 — it applies now.

This guide walks through the four obligations and who each one falls on (provider or deployer). It also covers the exceptions, how and when you must give the information, and what non-compliance costs.

The Four Article 50 Obligations at a Glance

Article 50 is titled "Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems". Each of its first four paragraphs targets a different situation:

Art. 50(1): Tell People They Are Talking to an AI

Providers must design AI systems that interact directly with natural persons so those persons know they are interacting with an AI system. The obligation falls away only where that is obvious. The test is the view of a reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect person, given the circumstances and context of use. A branded support chatbot in a "Chat with our AI assistant" widget may pass that bar. An AI voice agent answering your phone line almost certainly does not.

A narrow carve-out covers systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences. It does not apply where the system is available for the public to report an offence.

Art. 50(2): Mark AI-Generated Content at the Source

Providers of AI systems that generate synthetic audio, image, video or text — including general-purpose AI systems — must mark the outputs in a machine-readable format. The outputs must be detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. The marking must be effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as technically feasible. This takes into account the state of the art and relevant technical standards. In practice, that means provenance metadata and watermarking schemes.

The obligation does not apply where the system performs an assistive function for standard editing. It also does not apply where the system does not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer, or its meaning. A further exception covers use authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences.

Expect the detail to firm up. Article 50(7) tasks the AI Office with facilitating codes of practice on detection and labelling of artificial content. The Commission can approve those codes — or, if they fall short, set common implementation rules — via implementing acts.

Art. 50(3): Emotion Recognition and Biometric Categorisation

Deployers of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system must inform the natural persons exposed to it of the operation of the system. They must also process the personal data involved in line with the GDPR and the other applicable EU data-protection rules. The same law-enforcement carve-out as above applies, subject to safeguards.

Remember the interplay with the prohibitions. Since February 2025, Article 5 bans AI systems that infer emotions in the workplace and education institutions. The only exception is use for medical or safety reasons. Article 50(3) transparency only becomes relevant where the use is not prohibited in the first place.

Art. 50(4): Label Deep Fakes and AI-Written Public-Interest Text

Some AI systems generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that constitutes a deep fake. Their deployers must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. For evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works, the duty softens. Disclosure must happen in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work.

A second limb covers text. It covers deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates text published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest. They must disclose that the text is AI-generated or manipulated. The duty lapses if the content has undergone human review or editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for its publication. That editorial-responsibility exception keeps a normal newsroom workflow with AI-assisted drafting out of scope.

How and When to Disclose: Art. 50(5) and Art. 50(6)

Article 50(5) sets the delivery standard. The information must reach the persons concerned in a clear and distinguishable manner, at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. It must also conform to applicable accessibility requirements. A notice buried in terms of service does not meet that bar.

Article 50(6) makes clear these duties stack. They do not replace the Chapter III high-risk requirements. They do not replace any other transparency obligations in EU or national law. A high-risk system that also interacts with people needs both sets of measures. GDPR information duties also continue to apply in parallel.

Since When Article 50 Applies, and the One Transition Left

Article 113 makes 2 August 2026 the Act's general application date. Article 50 sits in that general tranche. The Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) deferred the high-risk timeline. It moved Annex III to 2 December 2027 and Annex I to 2 August 2028. It did not delay Article 50. The transparency obligations are live obligations today, not a future deadline. One transition applies: generative AI systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026 have until 2 December 2026 to bring the Article 50(2) machine-readable marking into line; systems placed on the market since then must mark from day one.

Non-compliance with Article 50 carries administrative fines of up to EUR 15 000 000 or 3 % of total worldwide annual turnover (Article 99(4)(g)). The higher of the two amounts applies. Non-compliance is also an express ground for market-surveillance intervention against the system itself.

A Practical Article 50 Compliance Sequence

For most organisations, Article 50 compliance is a screening exercise across the AI inventory:

1. Inventory — list every system that talks to people, generates content, reads emotions or biometric traits, or produces deep fakes. Include embedded vendor tools, not just what you built.
2. Map — match each system to the paragraph(s) that bind it. One system can trigger several: a customer-facing generative chatbot engages both 50(1) and 50(2).
3. Decide exemptions and write them down — obviousness, assistive editing, artistic works, editorial responsibility. Record the rationale so you can defend it later.
4. Implement — the disclosure at first interaction, machine-readable output marking, notices for emotion/biometric systems, deep-fake labels — in every deployment language, meeting accessibility requirements.
5. Keep evidence — screenshots of the notices, marking specifications, and a per-system disclosure record you can hand to a market-surveillance authority.

Article 50 FAQ

What is Article 50 of the EU AI Act?

Article 50 is the transparency layer of the EU AI Act — formally, "Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems". It makes sure people know when they are dealing with an AI system, when the content in front of them was generated by one, and when a system is reading their emotions or biometric traits. It is a disclosure duty rather than a product-safety regime: it sits outside the high-risk requirements of Chapter III and applies alongside them.

What are the Article 50 transparency obligations?

There are four. Art. 50(1) — tell people they are interacting with an AI system, unless that is obvious; Art. 50(2) — mark synthetic audio, image, video and text output in a machine-readable format, detectable as artificially generated; Art. 50(3) — inform people exposed to emotion recognition or biometric categorisation; Art. 50(4) — disclose deep fakes, and AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. Art. 50(5) adds the delivery standard: the information must be clear and distinguishable, and must reach the person at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure.

When did Article 50 of the AI Act start to apply?

Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026, the general date of application set by Article 113. It was not postponed: the Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) deferred the high-risk regime — Annex III systems to 2 December 2027, Annex I products to 2 August 2028 — and left the transparency duties in force. One transition remains: under Article 111(4), providers of systems generating synthetic content that were placed on the market before 2 August 2026 have until 2 December 2026 to bring the Art. 50(2) machine-readable marking into line.

Is there an Article 50 disclosure template we can use?

Yes — the free DOCX pack on this page carries five ready-to-adapt disclosure texts: a chatbot notice, a machine-readable marking statement, an emotion-recognition notice, a deep-fake label, and an AI-text disclosure. It also includes a decision table that maps a system to the paragraphs that bind it, and a ten-point checklist. No email address is required, and the wording is information rather than legal advice — adapt it to your own system and to each deployment language.

Who has to comply with Art. 50 — the provider or the deployer?

Both, on different paragraphs: the provider carries Art. 50(1) and Art. 50(2), the deployer carries Art. 50(3) and Art. 50(4). One organisation is often both at once — build a customer-facing generative chatbot and run it yourself, and every paragraph that system engages falls to you. Where you deploy a third-party system, check what the provider already marks before assuming the output is covered.

Reviewed and published under the editorial responsibility of AB Corporate Advisory S.R.L.