Guidelines on the implementation of the transparency obligations for certain AI systems under Article 50 of the AI Act — C(2026) 5054 final, Annex

(10) According to Article 3(3) AI Act, providers are natural or legal persons, public authorities, agencies or other bodies that develop AI systems, or have them developed, and place them on the Union market or put them into service under their own name or trademark, whether for payment or free of charge. Providers must comply with the relevant transparency obligations in Article 50(1) and (2) AI Act applicable to them, irrespective of whether they are established or located within the Union or in a third country (3). Providers established or located outside the Union are also subject to the AI Act if the output of their AI system is used in the Union (4). However, incidental, unforeseeable or unauthorised downstream use should not alone trigger the application of the obligations to such third country providers of interactive or generative AI systems that are not placed on the market or put into service in the Union, without prejudice to the powers for competent market surveillance authorities to consider their outputs as non- compliant with the AI Act.

(11) Providers must ensure their interactive or generative AI systems have transparency embedded into the system’s design and operation and ensure all relevant transparency obligations in Articles 50(1), (2) and (5) AI Act are met at the latest when those systems are placed on the market or put into service. All natural persons interacting with the AI system or exposed to its outputs in scope must be effectively and consistently informed throughout the lifecycle of the AI system, as placed on the market or put into service by that provider (irrespective of who the deployers or other users of the system are). For example, a company provides a generative or interactive AI application (e.g. a chatbot, image generator, AI agent) on the Union market under its own name or trademark to consumers, professional users or other legal entities who may directly use the AI system for interaction or content generation (including by integrating the system into their existing processes and using it accordingly without the need for modifications or additional components). The company is a provider responsible for compliance with the transparency obligations in Article 50(1) and/or

(2) AI Act, regardless of whether the AI system is provided for free or for payment and regardless of whether the provider is established or located in the Union or in a third country. Another example of a provider is a company or another organisation (e.g. a public authority) that has developed an interactive AI system (e.g. chatbot) in-house and puts it into service in the Union for its own use and under its name or trademark.

(3) Articles 2(1)(a), 3(3), (9) and (11) AI Act. For further guidance on the concepts of placing on the market, putting into service and use, see the Commission Guidelines on the prohibited artificial intelligence practices, C(2025) 5052 and Commission Notice – The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU product rules 2022, 2022/C 247/01, Section 2.

(4) Article 2(1)(c) and recital 22 AI Act.

If a company takes an already existing generative AI system placed on the market by another provider and modifies that system (e.g. with new training data), which it afterwards puts into service under its own name or trade market, then that company becomes a provider of the new system without prejudice to the responsibility of the provider of the initial AI system for the latter.

(12) Deployers are natural or legal persons, public authorities, agencies or other bodies using AI systems under their authority, unless the use is for a personal non-professional activity (5). The ‘authority’ over an AI system should be understood as assuming responsibility over the decision to deploy the system and over the manner of the actual use of the system (including its outputs). It does not necessarily require technical control over the operation of the AI system, so long as the deployer takes the decision for what purposes and how to use the AI system (including in decentralised workflows and group corporate structures). Deployers involved in complex content production and distribution value chains should take proportionate measures to ensure that the labelling of the content they have implemented pursuant to Article 50(4) AI Act is displayed in a clear and distinguishable manner for the targeted and foreseeable audience at the point of first exposure in accordance with Article 50(5) AI Act (e.g., via contractual conditions with distributing partners, user experience (UX) settings and interfaces to be displayed).

(13) Deployers fall within the scope of the transparency obligations in Article 50(3) and (4) AI Act if their place of establishment or location is within the Union, or if they are established or located in a third country where the output of the AI system is used in the Union (6). In the latter case, the transparency obligations apply to entities located or established outside the Union where the deployer itself foresees dissemination and use of the AI outputs in the Union (i.e. by directing or authorising distribution within the Union, including by posting deep fakes on the globally accessible internet). However, third country deployers are not bound by the transparency obligations where the content of the AI system reaches audiences in the Union through channels that are unforeseeable and outside their control.

(14) Where the deployer of an AI system is a legal person under whose authority the system is used (e.g. an advertising company), the individual employees that act under the instructions and under the control of that legal person (e.g. digital animators, web designers, content creators, journalists) should not be considered as separate deployers for that system. A legal person remains a deployer even if it involves third parties (e.g. contractors, freelancers) in the operation of the system on its behalf and under its responsibility and control. For example, a media outlet established in the Union, whose editors use an AI system to support their written coverage of current events with AI-generated text publications on matters of public interests posted on a globally accessible website, is a deployer falling within the scope of the AI Act. Similarly, a company established in a third country that uses an AI system to generate a deep fake of a celebrity featured in an advertisement displayed in the Union is also a deployer falling within the scope of the AI Act.

(5) Article 3(4) AI Act.

(6) Article 2(1)(b) and (c) AI Act.

By contrast, a company that merely commissions an advertising agency to produce an advertisement, without taking decisions and exercising control over whether and how the advertising agency uses AI in the production process, is not a deployer.

(15) Operators (e.g. providers and deployers) may fulfil more than one role concurrently in relation to an AI system. For example, a company might develop an in-house generative AI system and use it for the generation of deep fakes. In such a case, it will qualify as both a provider and a deployer that must ensure compliance with the machine-readable marking obligations under Article 50(2) and the requirements for a clear and perceivable labelling of the deep fakes under Article 50(4) AI Act.

(16) By contrast, other actors (such as providers of hosting services, including online platforms, or broadcasters) whose role is limited to disseminating or transmitting AI- generated or manipulated content created by third parties, or who receive or are exposed to AI-generated or manipulated content without having authority over the use of the AI system for the purpose of the AI content generation or manipulation, are not deployers within the meaning of the AI Act. Without being responsible and liable under the AI Act, those actors may nevertheless play an important role in the value chain to preserve the trust and integrity of the information ecosystem. They are, therefore, strongly encouraged to preserve the marking and labelling implemented pursuant to Article 50 AI Act and implement proportionate and technically feasible measures to enable natural persons to detect the AI-generated or manipulated content, without prejudice to the responsibility of providers and deployers of generative AI systems or any obligations or liability under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (the Digital Services Act or ‘DSA’) (7) or other applicable Union or national law.

(17) Other actors acting in their professional capacity and disseminating content (even if not directly engaged under Article 50 AI Act) are also encouraged to take proportionate and appropriate measures, so that the natural persons ultimately exposed to the content are effectively informed and able to detect its artificially generated or manipulated origin. In addition, these parties may be required to label the respective deep fakes or text publications on matters of public interest under other applicable legal or deontological rules (e.g. a broadcaster labelling and showing as part of a TV-programme a deep fake created by a private person). However, the mere fact that an actor labels content or uses labelled content does not mean that the latter qualifies as a ‘deployer’ within the meaning of the AI Act. The AI Act does not extend or affect the legal responsibility of those actors under the applicable legal frameworks, if they do not qualify at the same time as providers or deployers of AI systems.