Commission Opinion of 8 July 2026 on the assessment of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content — C(2026) 4839 final

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 8.7.2026 C(2026) 4839 final

COMMISSION OPINION

of 8.7.2026

on the assessment of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content in accordance with Articles 50(7) and 56(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

COMMISSION OPINION

of 8.7.2026

on the assessment of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content in accordance with Articles 50(7) and 56(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689

1. LEGAL BASIS

(1) On 10 June 2026, the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated content (the “Code”) was published. It was drawn up pursuant to Article 50(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European approach for Artificial Intelligence (the Artificial Intelligence Act or “AI Act”). The purpose of the Code is to facilitate the effective implementation of the obligations regarding the marking and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated content as provided in Articles 50(2) and (4) AI Act. The Code also facilitates the effective implementation of the horizontal requirements for disclosure envisaged in Article 50(5) AI Act.

(2) Article 50(2) AI Act requires providers of AI systems (including general-purpose AI systems), that generate synthetic audio, image, video or text content, to ensure that the outputs of their AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated, unless limited exceptions apply. The technical solutions for marking and detection employed by providers must also meet four requirements for effectiveness, reliability, robustness and interoperability.

(3) Article 50(4), subparagraph 1, AI Act requires deployers of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, audio or video content constituting a deep fake to disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. Subparagraph 2 of that provision requires 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 to disclose that the text has been artificially generated or manipulated, unless limited exceptions apply.

(4) Article 50(5) requires the information referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of that provision to 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 must conform to the applicable accessibility requirements.

(5) Pursuant to Article 50(7) AI Act, the Commission may adopt an implementing act to approve codes of practice on the detection and marking of AI-generated and manipulated content in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 56(6) AI Act. The Commission may also adopt common rules for the implementation of those obligations, if it deems that the code is not adequate. A contrario, it follows that the Commission has a corresponding obligation to assess the adequacy of the Code in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 56(6) AI Act before proposing an implementing act to approve the Code, similar to the procedure foreseen for assessing the adequacy of Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI. In addition to a Commission

EN 1 EN

adequacy assessment, Article 56(6) AI Act also refers to an adequacy assessment by the AI Board, which is composed of representatives from the Member States and their market surveillance authorities (“the Board”). The co-legislators approved the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2024/1689 and (EU) 2018/1139 as regards the simplification of the implementation of harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, which will introduce changes to the procedure for the assessment of the adequacy of Codes of Practice under Article 50(7) AI Act. Once it enters into application, Article 56(6) AI Act will require the Commission to assess the adequacy of the Code after consultation of the Board. This assessment is undertaken by the Commission and the Board in parallel under the existing rules and will remain also valid after the entry into application of the AI Omnibus as long as the conclusions from both assessments are consistent.

(6) This Opinion sets out the assessment by the Commission. The Board’s opinion on the adequacy of the Code will be published separately.

(7) This Opinion does not prejudge any future action that the Commission, the Board, and other competent authorities, as applicable, may undertake in the enforcement of the AI Act. This document does not prevent the Commission from assessing the Code as inadequate in the future following its regular monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of the Code’s objectives and its contribution to the effective implementation of the AI Act pursuant to Articles 50(7) and Article 56(6) AI Act.