--- authoritative: false representation: annotated-page publisher: AstroKube methodology: https://ai-act.astrokube.com/about/ source_verified_on: '2026-09-15' site_content_updated_on: '2026-09-15' title: 'Article 50: Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI… | EU AI Act | AstroKube' description: 'Article 50, EU AI Act: 1. Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a…' language: en source: https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/ --- 1. [Start](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/) 2. [The law](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/) 3. Article 50 Chapter IV · TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATIONS FOR PROVIDERS AND DEPLOYERS OF CERTAIN AI SYSTEMS # Article 50 — Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems ⟲ Amended · Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 ▼ Primary text, verbatim. Our annotations appear below, visibly separated. [1\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-1) Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the point of view of a natural person who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect, taking into account the circumstances and the context of use. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences, subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence. [2\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-2) Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. Providers shall ensure their technical solutions are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as this is technically feasible, taking into account the specificities and limitations of various types of content, the costs of implementation and the generally acknowledged state of the art, as may be reflected in relevant technical standards. This obligation shall not apply to the extent the AI systems perform an assistive function for standard editing or do not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof, or where authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences. [3\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-3) Deployers of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform the natural persons exposed thereto of the operation of the system, and shall process the personal data in accordance with Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation and emotion recognition, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent or investigate criminal offences, subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties, and in accordance with Union law. [4\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-4) 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. 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. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences or where the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content. [5\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-5) 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. [6\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-6) Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not affect the requirements and obligations set out in Chapter III, and shall be without prejudice to other transparency obligations laid down in Union or national law for deployers of AI systems. [7\.](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/#p-7) The Commission shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level to facilitate the effective implementation of the obligations regarding the detection, marking and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated content. The Commission, taking utmost account of the opinion of the Board, shall assess whether adherence to those codes of practice is adequate to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Article, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 56(6). If it deems the code of practice to be inadequate, the Commission may adopt an implementing act specifying common rules for the implementation of those obligations in accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 98(2). This text is meant purely as a documentation tool and has no legal effect. The Union's institutions do not assume any liability for its contents. The authentic versions of the relevant acts, including their preambles, are those published in the Official Journal of the European Union and available in EUR-Lex. **Amended** — Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 Passages marked with the accent edge in the primary text were inserted or replaced by the amendment. Show the text as adopted, before the amendment The authentic 2024 text of this provision, shown for comparison. It no longer states the law. 1\. Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system, unless this is obvious from the point of view of a natural person who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect, taking into account the circumstances and the context of use. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences, subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties, unless those systems are available for the public to report a criminal offence. 2\. Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated. Providers shall ensure their technical solutions are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as this is technically feasible, taking into account the specificities and limitations of various types of content, the costs of implementation and the generally acknowledged state of the art, as may be reflected in relevant technical standards. This obligation shall not apply to the extent the AI systems perform an assistive function for standard editing or do not substantially alter the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof, or where authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences. 3\. Deployers of an emotion recognition system or a biometric categorisation system shall inform the natural persons exposed thereto of the operation of the system, and shall process the personal data in accordance with Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable. This obligation shall not apply to AI systems used for biometric categorisation and emotion recognition, which are permitted by law to detect, prevent or investigate criminal offences, subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties, and in accordance with Union law. 4\. 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. 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. This obligation shall not apply where the use is authorised by law to detect, prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences or where the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or editorial control and where a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content. 5\. 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. 6\. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not affect the requirements and obligations set out in Chapter III, and shall be without prejudice to other transparency obligations laid down in Union or national law for deployers of AI systems. 7\. The AI Office shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level to facilitate the effective implementation of the obligations regarding the detection and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated content. The Commission may adopt implementing acts to approve those codes of practice in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 56 (6). If it deems the code is not adequate, the Commission may adopt an implementing act specifying common rules for the implementation of those obligations in accordance with the examination procedure laid down in Article 98(2). [ Recital 134 — interpretive context Further to the technical solutions employed by the providers of the AI system, deployers who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes), should also clearly and distinguishably disclose that the content has been artificially… ](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/recital-134/)[ Recital 135 — interpretive context Without prejudice to the mandatory nature and full applicability of the transparency obligations, the Commission may also encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level to facilitate the effective implementation of the obligations regarding the detection and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated content, including to support practical arrangements for making, as appropriate,… ](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/recital-135/) ## What this means for you In your terms · Deployer disclosure: emotion recognition and deep fakes Labels and notices belong in the rendering path of the content or the interaction, not in a policy document nobody sees. - Deep-fake disclosure label in the content pipeline In your terms · Disclosing interaction with an AI system Ship it as a reusable component so every conversational surface gets it by default. - Reusable disclosure component In your terms · Machine-readable marking of synthetic content Marking is an output-pipeline feature: provenance metadata or watermarking applied where content is produced, not patched on afterwards. - Content marking in the generation pipeline Failure smells likeOutput leaves the system unmarked, and the only way to tell it was generated is to already know. ## Obligations derived from this article [Deployer disclosure: emotion recognition and deep fakesArt. 50(3) and (4)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?art=art-50)[Disclosing interaction with an AI systemArt. 50(1)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?art=art-50)[Machine-readable marking of synthetic contentArt. 50(2)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?art=art-50) ## Scenarios that touch this provision ### A code assistant for your own engineers Illustrative Reading still settling An assistant suggests code in the editor and opens pull requests, running against a hosted model. ### Your role ProviderDeployer ### Where it lands Not classified In force 2 Aug 2026 ### Decided by No Annex III use case. The open question is Article 50(2), because the assistant generates text. What applies - [AI literacy measures](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-4-ai-literacy) - [Machine-readable marking of synthetic content](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-50-synthetic-marking) What you have to be able to produce - Content marking in the generation pipeline - Onboarding notes for AI-touching roles - Provenance-preservation test in CI - Team enablement plan for people operating AI systems What would change the answer - Article 50(2) does not apply to the extent a system performs an assistive function for standard editing or does not substantially alter the input data or its semantics. Whether a generated patch is assistive editing is exactly the line this exemption draws, and it is not settled. - Generated code that ships inside a product covered by Annex I harmonisation legislation is a question about that product, not about the assistant. - Use it to evaluate engineers rather than to help them and Annex III point 4(b) applies. [EU Art. 50(2)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Annex III, point 4(b)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/annex-iii/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Art. 4](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-4/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Guidelines on Article 50 Commission interpretation](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems "Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems (Article 50)") A scenario describes a system we made up, not yours. It is not a classification of your system and not legal advice. Pending review by a named legal reviewer. ### A customer-support chatbot on your public site Illustrative The same stack, pointed outward: a chatbot that answers customer questions, drafts replies and escalates to a human when it cannot answer. ### Your role ProviderDeployer ### Where it lands Any risk level In force 2 Aug 2026 ### Decided by Article 50(1): a system intended to interact directly with natural persons. The transparency duties attach without the system being high-risk. What applies - [Disclosing interaction with an AI system](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-50-interaction-disclosure) - [Machine-readable marking of synthetic content](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-50-synthetic-marking) - [AI literacy measures](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-4-ai-literacy) What you have to be able to produce - Content marking in the generation pipeline - Disclosure pattern in the design system - Onboarding notes for AI-touching roles - Provenance-preservation test in CI - Reusable disclosure component - Team enablement plan for people operating AI systems What would change the answer - If the bot decides access to an essential service rather than describing it, Annex III point 5 puts it in the high-risk tier. - Article 50(2) marking has an exemption where the system performs an assistive function for standard editing or does not substantially alter the deployer’s input. A bot that writes the answer is not editing yours. - Publishing its text as an article on a matter of public interest brings Article 50(4) into play, and that duty sits on the deployer. [EU Art. 50(1), (2)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Annex III, point 5](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/annex-iii/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Art. 4](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-4/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Guidelines on Article 50 Commission interpretation](https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems "Guidelines on transparency obligations for providers and deployers of AI systems (Article 50)") A scenario describes a system we made up, not yours. It is not a classification of your system and not legal advice. Pending review by a named legal reviewer. ### A RAG assistant over internal documents, on a vendor model Illustrative You wrapped a vendor model in a retrieval layer over your own wiki and runbooks, and put it in front of your own staff. Nobody outside the company can reach it. ### Your role ProviderDeployer ### Where it lands Not classified In force 2 Feb 2025 ### Decided by No Annex III use case, and not a safety component under Article 6(1). Putting a system into service for your own use still makes you its provider under Article 3(11). What applies - [AI literacy measures](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-4-ai-literacy) - [Disclosing interaction with an AI system](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/explorer/?q=art-50-interaction-disclosure) What you have to be able to produce - Disclosure pattern in the design system - Onboarding notes for AI-touching roles - Reusable disclosure component - Team enablement plan for people operating AI systems What would change the answer - Point it at a decision the Act lists. The moment it screens candidates or scores people, Annex III applies and the answer changes completely. - Article 50(1) asks you to tell people they are interacting with an AI system unless that is obvious. For an internal assistant behind a login it usually is; write down why you concluded that. - Fine-tune the vendor model and you may become the provider of the modified model, with Chapter V duties for it. [EU Art. 3(1), (11)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-3/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Art. 6](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-6/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Annex III](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/annex-iii/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Art. 4](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-4/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") [EU Art. 50(1)](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50/ "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)") A scenario describes a system we made up, not yours. It is not a classification of your system and not legal advice. Pending review by a named legal reviewer. ## If you would rather not read the law The basics page explains the Regulation's own categories in order: scope, role, tier, date. The engineering view groups the obligations by the platform capability they demand. [Start with the basics →](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/basics/) [Open the engineering view →](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/engineering/) ## About this provision ### Status In force 2 Aug 2026 ### Regime Transparency ### Binds DeployerProvider ### Type Article · Chapter IV ### Amended by [Regulation (EU) 2026/1744](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02024R1689-20260727) ### Recitals [134](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/recital-134/) [135](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/recital-135/) ### Related [Article 13](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-13/) [Article 26](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-26/) ### Cited capture regulation-2024-1689/en-2026-08-18.html sha256 8f0b656302f9864c… [Authentic text (EUR-Lex) →](http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj) [This version (EUR-Lex) →](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02024R1689-20260727) ### Machine readable [/law/art-50.md](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/law/art-50.md) [/api/law.json](https://ai-act.astrokube.com/api/law.json) ### Found an error? [Write to us →](https://astrokube.com/contact)