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

(133) Article 50(4), second subparagraph, AI Act foresees an exception to the transparency obligation laid down in that provision where two cumulative conditions are met: (i) the AI generated or manipulated text must have undergone human review or editorial control and (ii) a legal or natural person must hold editorial responsibility for the publication. Where relevant, deployers may rely on relevant applicable professional or deontological standards to demonstrate compliance with those requirements as outlined below.

i. Text under human review or editorial control

(134) The first condition for the exception to Article 50(4), second subparagraph, AI Act to apply requires that the AI-generated or manipulated text has been subject to human review or editorial control. Human review refers to the deliberate examination of the substance of the content by one or more natural persons possessing relevant knowledge and professional judgement pertaining to the subject matter under scrutiny (e.g. academic peer review or professional validation chains). Fact-checking the accuracy of the content is a minimum requirement that should be part of that review. Editorial control refers to the control exercised in practice by a responsible editorial entity (e.g. an editor-in-chief) over the content having the authority to approve, alter or reject the substance of the text based on substantive grounds (incl. fact-checking of information and ensuring the trustworthiness of sources). This is without prejudice to existing review and editorial procedures and professional standards applicable to media service providers.

(135) Superficial, solely formal or procedural checks (e.g. spell-checking or grammatical correction), the mere existence of an editorial policy, automated review processes or cursory editorial approval without substantive engagement by the human reviewer or the editorial entity, cannot fulfil the conditions for human review or editorial control for the purposes of this exception.

(136) Where AI systems are used to modify, supplement, or reformulate content following editorial sign-off, the resulting content must be treated as AI-generated or manipulated

for the purposes of Article 50(4) AI Act. Any substantive AI intervention occurring after the human review or editorial control process has taken place will therefore cause the exception to become void.

(137) In light of Article 50(7) AI Act, deployers may adhere to a code of practice, assessed as adequate pursuant to that provision, to demonstrate compliance with the condition of human review or editorial control (especially by deployers that are not media service providers subject to existing editorial professional or deontological standards) laid down in that provision. For further information regarding the effects of adherence to such a code and supervision of deployers who do not adhere to such a code, see Section 8.1.

ii. Editorial responsibility

(138) The second condition for the exception to Article 50(4), second subparagraph, AI Act to apply requires a legal or natural person to hold editorial responsibility for the publication of the content. This entails that said person must hold the ultimate legal responsibility over the publication of the content, including the human review or editorial control (e.g. an individual, editorial board, or the publishing company). To ensure public accountability and trust, and in line with existing media professional standards, the identity and contact details of the legal person, the natural person or the function with editorial responsibility should be made publicly available on an easily findable location (if not yet otherwise available). This can happen online through e.g. a website’s terms and conditions or other user-facing legal information. Offline, such information can be included in a publication’s colophon or edition notice. Examples of text subject to human review or editorial control with a legal or natural person holding editorial responsibility

- An AI-manipulated article in a newspaper or AI-generated summary of an article that has been subject to editorial control of the respective editor-in-chief with editorial responsibility held by the legal person that publishes the newspaper.

- An AI-manipulated academic blog which has undergone internal peer review and where the respective research centre managing the blog holds editorial responsibility.

- AI-generated public safety warnings approved by a public official before being distributed to citizens, under the responsibility of the relevant public agency for civil protection.

- AI-generated sustainability reports published on a listed company’s website having undergone human review by professionals in relevant functions (e.g. compliance).

- AI-supported translation of a human-written article whereby the translation has undergone human review. Examples of text that do not meet the required human review or editorial control to benefit from the exception:

- A website where AI-generated articles on Union policy are posted without any deliberate human review or editorial control.

- AI-generated articles that are reviewed and edited by another AI system and where a human editor performs a mere superficial, grammatical check before publication.

- An AI-generated, self-published book on climate change, made available on an e-commerce platform that has not undergone any review by a competent natural or legal person (nor by the platform).