Code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content: should you sign and what does it deliver
Signing the code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content of 10 June 2026 is voluntary. Not signing is not an infringement, but then you must demonstrate by other appropriate means how you comply with Article 50. Embed AI maps your practice against the code, identifies the gaps and documents the reasoning behind your decision to sign or not.
Gap analysis and decision
2 weeks
From a voluntary code to demonstrable compliance
Gap analysis of your practice against the code of practice
Documented decision: sign or demonstrate by other means
Evidence file per Article 50 duty
Action list with owner, priority and matching evidence
The duty already applies, the code is the route to evidence
Article 50 has applied since 2 August 2026 and was not postponed. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 has been in force since 27 July 2026 and moved high-risk Annex III to 2 December 2027 and Annex I to 2 August 2028, but left Article 50 untouched. The code of practice of 10 June 2026 does not change that duty: the code is a recognised way to show how you comply. Those who do not sign must organise that evidence themselves.
What the code of practice does and does not do
The code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content was published on 10 June 2026. Signing is voluntary and not signing is not an infringement. The code covers Article 50 paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, with one section for providers and one for deployers, and directly shapes how you demonstrate compliance with those duties.
Signing is voluntary
The code is not law. You decide whether to sign. That decision deserves documented reasoning, because supervisors and clients will ask for it.
Not signing requires other evidence
Point 148 of the code: those who do not sign must demonstrate by other appropriate means how they comply. A gap analysis against the code is exactly that means.
Compliance can count as a mitigating factor
Point 149: adherence to the code may be taken into account as a mitigating factor when a supervisory authority considers a fine.
The fine ceiling is not automatic
For Article 50 a supervisory authority may impose a fine of up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. That is a ceiling, not a default outcome.
Transition period: the only transition inside Article 50 sits in paragraph 2 and applies only to systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026, running until 2 December 2026. It does not extend to the deployer duties under paragraphs 3 and 4.
Four guideline points that steer your decision
The Commission published guidelines C(2026) 5054 final on 20 July 2026. Four points from those guidelines determine in practice what your file must look like.
Do not lean on your supplier marking
Point 117: a deployer may not rely on the machine-readable marking of the provider. You organise your own recognizability.
Handle the chain contractually
Point 12: distribution chains require proportionate measures, including contractual arrangements with the parties publishing on your behalf.
Freelancers do not shift the duty
Point 14: a legal person remains the deployer, also when freelancers are engaged. The arrangements go on paper, the duty stays with you.
Advertising does not reach the creative exception
Point 122: where the character is mixed, the informative or commercial character prevails, so advertising does not reach the creative exception. Point 124: the lighter regime does not justify infringing intellectual property or data protection rights.
When this gap analysis fits
This service is for organizations that want to know whether they should sign, what signing delivers and how they otherwise make compliance demonstrable.
You are unsure whether to sign
Management, legal and communications cannot settle it because the benefits and the commitments of the code are not laid side by side.
You publish AI-generated content
Marketing, social, imagery or text where marking and recognizability are currently handled differently per team.
You need to show compliance
Clients, tenders or a supervisory authority ask for evidence and you currently have scattered agreements instead of a file.
What the gap analysis delivers
Gap analysis of your current practice against every element of the code
Reasoned recommendation: sign or demonstrate by other appropriate means
Decision memo for management with the arguments for both routes
Evidence file per Article 50 duty, linked to your own documents
Role determination per use case: provider or deployer
Contractual building blocks for your distribution chain and suppliers
Working agreements for freelancers and agencies publishing on your behalf
Action list with owner, priority and the matching piece of evidence
Approach in 2 weeks
Scope and intake
We determine which channels, systems and content flows fall within the reach of the code of practice.
Gap analysis against the code
We place your current practice next to each element of the code and record per point what exists, what is missing and what it takes to close it.
Decision rationale
We weigh signing against the route of other appropriate means and record the arguments in a decision memo for management.
Evidence and chain agreements
We link each duty to a concrete piece of evidence and deliver contractual building blocks for suppliers, agencies and freelancers.
Action list and handover
You get an action list with owner and priority, plus a short working session so the teams can carry on.
Investment
Embed AI works with fixed amounts, so you know up front where you stand.
AI governance scan
EUR 2,950, deductible from a follow-up engagement. The fastest route to a gap analysis against the code and a reasoned decision.
AI Act Readiness Sprint
EUR 9,900. For organizations that fold the code into a broader readiness track covering systems, roles and evidence.
Bundle
EUR 21,900. Readiness plus implementation support, including chain agreements and building the evidence file.
Who this works for
Management and board
Who want documented reasoning for the decision to sign or not, including the cost of both routes.
Marketing and communications
Who publish AI-generated content and want marking and recognizability handled uniformly across channels.
Legal, privacy and compliance
Who want to translate the code into concrete working agreements, contract clauses and evidence.
Procurement and vendor management
Who must record proportionate measures and contractual arrangements with agencies, suppliers and freelancers.
Afterwards you know
Whether signing adds value for you
How you otherwise demonstrate compliance
Which gaps sit between practice and code
Which evidence belongs to which duty
Who picks up which action and when
Logical next steps
Article 50 transparency check
For the broader check: which duty applies per chatbot, generative system and publication channel, and whether you are provider or deployer.
View routeAI Act readiness and gap analysis
For a broader view of AI systems, roles, duties and evidence in one roadmap.
View routeAI inventory setup
For a compact inventory of AI systems with owner, purpose and evidence status.
View routeRole-specific training
Your marketing, communications and procurement teams must be able to apply the agreements themselves. LearnWize delivers the role-specific transparency training that runs alongside this track.
View the transparency training at LearnWizeLegal background
Analyses on Praxikon about Article 50, the transparency duties and the split between provider and deployer:
Frequently asked questions
Do we have to sign the code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content?
No, signing is voluntary. The code of practice on transparency of AI-generated content was published on 10 June 2026 and not signing is not an infringement. Point 148 of the code does state that those who do not sign must demonstrate by other appropriate means how they comply. The choice is free, demonstrating compliance is not.
What does signing actually deliver?
Two things. After a positive adequacy assessment by the Commission and the AI Board, signatories may rely on the code to demonstrate compliance with Article 50 paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, which saves work compared with building your own evidence route. And point 149 of the code states that adherence may be taken into account as a mitigating factor when a supervisory authority considers a fine.
What happens if we neither sign nor record anything?
You may in fact comply with Article 50 but be unable to show it. For Article 50 a supervisory authority may impose a fine of up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. That ceiling is not automatic, but without a file you stand weak in a conversation with a supervisor, a client or a contracting authority.
Our supplier already marks output machine-readably. Is that enough?
No. Point 117 of guidelines C(2026) 5054 final of 20 July 2026 is explicit: a deployer may not rely on the machine-readable marking of the provider. You arrange your own recognizability for the content you publish.
We have content produced by an agency or freelancer. Does the duty shift?
No. Point 14 of the guidelines states that a legal person remains the deployer, also when freelancers are engaged. Point 12 requires proportionate measures in distribution chains, including contractual arrangements. We deliver those clauses with the analysis.
Does the creative exception cover our campaigns?
Usually not. Point 122 of the guidelines states that where the character is mixed, the informative or commercial character prevails, so advertising does not reach the creative exception. Point 124 adds that the lighter regime does not justify infringing intellectual property or data protection rights.
Document your decision and make compliance demonstrable.
Start with the free transparency scan. Within minutes you know where your practice deviates from the code and whether a gap analysis makes sense.