The AI labelling obligation under Article 50 of the EU AI Act

The legal text

Paragraph 4 of Article 50 sets out what must be disclosed, paragraph 5 how and when.

“Deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content constituting a deep fake, shall disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offence. Where the content forms part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous work or programme, the transparency obligations set out in this paragraph are limited to disclosure of the existence of such generated or manipulated content in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work.”

Article 50(4), first subparagraph, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

“The information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be provided to the natural persons concerned in a clear and distinguishable manner at the latest at the time of the first interaction or exposure. The information shall conform to the applicable accessibility requirements.”

Article 50(5), Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

In paragraph 5, “exposure” means the moment a person gets to see the content.

Who has to label: provider or deployer

Article 50 has two roles. A provider develops an AI system and places it on the market, such as the company behind an image generator, and must mark the output as artificial in a machine-readable format (Article 50(2)). A deployer uses an AI system under its authority (Article 3(4)) and must disclose deep fakes visibly (Article 50(4)). The two duties apply side by side (para. 111).

The guidelines read “authority” as deciding whether and how to use a system, including its output. Technical control over the tool is not needed (para. 12). Employees who act on instructions are not separate deployers; the company remains the deployer (para. 14).

The retailer as deployer

A store that uses an image generator, a generative fill tool or the AI feature of its e-commerce platform to create or edit product images is a deployer. The exclusion for purely personal, non-professional use (Article 2(10)) does not cover an online store, because any activity that regularly brings an economic benefit counts as professional (para. 19).

Agencies, photographers and freelancers

If a contractor or freelancer works to your instructions and you wanted, specified or approved the use of AI, you remain the deployer (para. 14). If you commission an advertising agency without deciding whether and how it uses AI, the guidelines treat the agency as the deployer (para. 14). It should take proportionate steps so that its label reaches the audience, for example through contracts with the partners that distribute the image (para. 12). You can require this in your contract.

Images from manufacturers and suppliers

If you only pass on a manufacturer's AI image without having decided on the use of AI, you are generally not a deployer under the guidelines. They nevertheless strongly encourage you to keep existing labels intact and to inform the audience (paras. 16 and 17). For an AI edit of your own, you are the deployer.

Retailers outside the EU

Businesses established outside the EU are covered when they foresee that their AI output will be used in the Union, for instance through a store that sells into the EU (Article 2(1)(c); para. 13). Other countries' rules are covered under Worldwide.

What has to be labelled

The first subparagraph of Article 50(4) covers image, audio and video content that constitutes a deep fake. Article 3(60) defines it as AI-generated or manipulated content that resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful.

Three points from the guidelines decide most store cases:

• Products are objects. The guidelines expressly include consumer goods (para. 113 iii).
• Nothing real needs to be copied. It is enough that the person, object, place or scene could plausibly exist (para. 113 ii). An invented but photorealistic AI model is covered.
• Intent does not matter (para. 114). What counts is the full range of the foreseeable audience, including children, older people and people with little experience of AI (para. 115).

The guidelines expressly name as a deep fake an AI product image in advertising or on packaging that can mislead about the product's actual appearance, characteristics or use, for example by making it look more appealing or of higher quality than in real life (examples after para. 116).

Text only on matters of public interest

“Deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates text which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest shall disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated.”

Article 50(4), second subparagraph, first sentence

Matters of public interest include politics, public administration, justice, fundamental rights, public security, public health, environmental protection and consumer safety (para. 131 iii). The guidelines place AI text in advertising or product descriptions outside the scope, unless it contains claims related to health, consumer safety or sustainability (examples to para. 131). A blog post on how diets affect a disease can be covered. The duty does not apply when a human reviews the text before publication and someone holds editorial responsibility; a spell check is not enough (Article 50(4), second subparagraph; paras. 134 and 135).

Chatbots: a separate duty

Chatbots fall under Article 50(1). That duty is on the provider, who must ensure that people learn they are talking to an AI (para. 31). A company that builds a chatbot in-house and runs it under its own name can be a provider itself (para. 11).

When the obligation started

Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026 (Article 113; para. 153), with no transition period for deployers. The Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) gave only providers of generative systems placed on the market before that date until 2 December 2026 for the machine-readable marking under paragraph 2 (Article 111(4); para. 153). Until then, AI images can lawfully reach you without provenance data, so missing metadata does not show that an image was made without AI.

Images created before the start date

Under the guidelines, deep fakes generated or manipulated before 2 August 2026 do not need to be labelled retroactively. The guidelines encourage labelling without expecting disproportionate effort such as auditing whole image libraries or changing printed packaging (para. 154). What counts is the date of the AI edit, not of publication. A new AI edit after the start date is covered. Whether reusing an old deep fake in a new campaign triggers the duty is not settled; the wording of the guidelines suggests it does not, but labelling is the sensible choice. All dates are collected under Deadlines.

How the disclosure must be made

Article 50(5) sets four requirements, which the guidelines spell out as follows:

• Clear: noticeable, easy to understand and accessible, including for people with disabilities (para. 142).
• Distinguishable: easy to identify as separate from other information and from the environment in which the image appears (para. 142).
• No later than first exposure: for each output and each person, at any moment someone is reasonably likely to see the image, for example while scrolling through social media (para. 143). In a store, that is often the product card in a collection or in search results, not the product page.
• Accessible: in line with the accessibility rules that already apply, with no additional requirements from Article 50 (para. 144).

Information that is easy to overlook under normal conditions does not count, for example a notice in a manual, in menus or in terms of use (para. 142). Nor can deployers rely on the machine-readable marking the AI provider writes into the file, because people cannot perceive it without technical tools (para. 117).

The Commission's Code of Practice describes what the label should look like: the acronym “AI” as the main element, visible at once without a click, in a place free of overlapping elements, such as the top right corner (Code, Section 2, Measures 1.1 and 1.2). The Commission offers three free EU icons for this. Size, position, contrast and wording are covered in AI label design.

Exceptions

Standard editing and minor changes

Under the guidelines, changes to insignificant aspects of existing content have little bearing on whether people perceive it as authentic (para. 116), for example colour correction, lighting adjustments, noise reduction or removing passers-by. For advertising, the guidelines name extending or replacing a background for clearly aesthetic purposes, arranging existing products and rescaling. Context still matters (para. 116). Once the AI changes the product itself, or creates a scene that can mislead about size, function or effect, the exception no longer applies.

Evidently artistic works

If a deep fake is part of an evidently artistic, creative, satirical or fictional work, a disclosure that does not hamper the enjoyment of the work is enough (Article 50(4), first subparagraph, third sentence). It cannot be dropped altogether (para. 123). The guidelines read “evidently” narrowly. Content that is recognisably purely informative or commercial is excluded, and where content mixes both, the informative character prevails (para. 122). Their counter-examples include a teleshopping style video with simulated consumers and a synthetic influencer testing a sponsored product (examples after para. 124). Product and advertising images will therefore rarely benefit, although an art print you sell as a work may.

Typical store cases: label or not

The assessments follow the guidelines. The labelling check asks the guideline questions image by image and cites the paragraph behind each result; worked examples are under Cases.

The Commission's guidelines are not binding; only the Court of Justice of the European Union can give an authoritative interpretation of the AI Act (para. 5). Market surveillance authorities do follow them, though. Where the guidelines leave a question open or point to the individual case, labelling is the safer choice.

Enforcement and fines

Each Member State designates market surveillance authorities, which can act on their own initiative or after a complaint (para. 151; Article 85). In Germany, the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) has held that role since 29 July 2026 (§ 2(1) KI-MIG) and also runs the central complaints office (§ 8 KI-MIG). Complaints are free and can only be filed through an online form.

Infringements of Article 50 can be fined up to EUR 15 million or 3 % of total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher (Article 99(4)(g)). For small and medium-sized enterprises, including start-ups, the lower of the two amounts applies (Article 99(6)), and the same goes for small mid-cap companies (Article 99(6a)). For an SME with an annual turnover of EUR 2 million, the cap would therefore be 3 %, or EUR 60,000. The actual amount depends on the circumstances, such as gravity, duration, intent or negligence, cooperation with the authority and the measures already taken (Article 99(7)).

In Germany, there are good arguments that Article 50(4) also regulates market conduct under § 3a of the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG), which would allow competitors and associations to send formal warning letters. No court has decided the point. By early October 2026 we had not found a published authority decision, judgment or warning letter on Article 50 in Germany. More under Fines and enforcement.

What a label does not do

A label meets the transparency duty but does not make the image lawful (recital 137). A deep fake that is unlawful as misleading advertising stays unlawful with a label (para. 129). That applies, for example, to an AI image that shows your product as better than it is, whoever created it. Changing an image of a real person with AI usually needs that person's consent (paras. 127 and 129).

Putting it into practice

1. Review your images. Find out which images have been created or changed with AI since 2 August 2026. The metadata check reads any provenance data in a file.
2. Decide image by image. The labelling check walks you through the questions from the guidelines. The decision is yours.
3. Add the label. Place it on the image, visible without a click, with “AI” and a short text such as “AI-generated”. The label tool produces an example.
4. Label everywhere the image appears, including product cards, search, banners, blog posts and channels outside your store (see AI images in online stores).
5. Keep records. Deployers who have not signed the Code of Practice are expected to show how they comply by other means, for instance with a gap analysis against the Code (para. 148).