EU AI Act update: the Council adopted the Digital Omnibus on AI on 29 June 2026. Official Journal publication is still pending; review the official Council update before relying on older high-risk deadline references. Council update EU AI Act update: Council adopted the Digital Omnibus; OJ publication pending. Council update

Tools · Deep Dive · 8 min

AI Content Marking Checker

10 June 2026 Article 50 Code update

The Code is voluntary. Article 50 is not. The European Commission published the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content on 10 June 2026. The Code supports provider marking under Article 50(2) and deployer labelling under Article 50(4), but Article 50 transparency obligations remain legal obligations where they apply.

Deployers should now record whether Code measures, EU icons, provider marking dependencies, label wording, first-interaction or first-exposure timing, accessibility, and public-interest text review were considered. Do not treat the Code, an icon, or a checklist as legal approval.

Article 50 timing watch

Do not treat every Article 50 obligation as postponed. Article 50 duties are route-specific. Commission materials state that Article 50 transparency obligations are applicable from 2 August 2026. PE-CONS 30/26 adds a specific adopted-pending-OJ transition for providers of AI systems generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content placed on the market before 2 August 2026 to comply with Article 50(2) by 2 December 2026. Do not extend that transition to every deployer disclosure duty under Article 50(4). The Council adopted the Digital Omnibus on AI on 29 June 2026. Official Journal publication and the exact entry-into-force date remain pending, so treat the adopted text as an adopted-pending-OJ planning track until the final OJ citation is verified.

Regulatory update

Council-adopted update pending OJ publication. Separate Article 5 timing from high-risk delays.

The Council adopted the Digital Omnibus on AI on 29 June 2026. Official Journal publication and the exact entry-into-force date remain pending. The adopted text moves many Article 6(2) / Annex III high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027 and Article 6(1) / Annex I product-integrated high-risk rules to 2 August 2028. Article 50 transparency, Article 4 AI literacy, Article 5 prohibitions and other near-term duties still require separate route-specific review. Continue inventory, role classification, vendor evidence, Article 50 trigger review and evidence-file preparation now.

Article 50 transparency obligations remain route-specific. Use 2 August 2026 as the near-term route-review date for in-scope transparency duties, and track the adopted-pending-OJ 2 December 2026 transition for Article 50(2) provider marking duties on synthetic-content systems already placed on the market before 2 August 2026. This tool separates provider and deployer routes; it is not a legal opinion.

Scope: Article 50 covers chatbots, deepfake/synthetic media generators, emotion recognition systems, and AI text generators on public-interest matters. Under current law, the baseline applicability date remains 2 August 2026 for systems in scope. PE-CONS 30/26 identifies a specific adopted-pending-OJ transition until 2 December 2026 for providers of synthetic-content systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026 to comply with Article 50(2). Track the Council-adopted Digital Omnibus text as adopted-pending-OJ until the final Official Journal citation and entry-into-force date are verified.
EU AI Act Article 50 content marking checker showing metadata watermarking and labelling pipeline assessment

Build a Route-Specific Article 50 Record

Select the legal route or routes that match the actual system or publication context. The tool then asks only the evidence questions relevant to those routes.

The output records findings, gaps, uncertainties, source basis, and provider dependencies. It does not calculate a compliance score.

Privacy By Design: This executes entirely in your browser. We never see your responses.

1. Your role in this review

2. Select every Article 50 route that may apply

Use the actual system and publication context. Provider marking and deployer labelling are separate routes.


Disclaimer: This assessment separates the Article 50 current-law routes from draft Commission guidance and voluntary Code measures as reviewed on 23 June 2026. The Code supports Article 50(2) and (4) implementation but is not a universal control stack. This tool does not constitute legal advice. Consult qualified counsel for binding compliance decisions.

Continue the Article 50 journey

Article 50 evidence fields to add after the Code update

AI Content Marking Checker FAQ

What does AI Content Marking Checker help me check?
AI Content Marking Checker helps structure an initial EU AI Act Article 50 readiness check for marking, labelling, disclosure, and evidence-retention decisions. Treat the result as an internal working record for compliance, legal, privacy, security, or procurement review, not as a final legal determination.
Does this tool store my answers?
The tool is designed for browser-based use. Do not paste confidential, personal, regulated, client-sensitive, privileged, or production data into any free public tool.
What evidence should I retain after using this tool?
Retain the generated result, reviewer name, review date, AI system or vendor name, Article 50 scenario, label wording, label placement, provider marking dependency, EU icon decision, assumptions used, and any decisions that require legal, privacy, procurement, or security follow-up.
Is the Article 50 Code of Practice mandatory?
No. The Code is voluntary implementation support. Article 50 transparency obligations remain legal obligations where they apply. Use the Code to structure marking, labelling, evidence, and review workflows. Do not treat Code participation as a substitute for the AI Act, Commission guidelines, or legal review.
What changed on 10 June 2026?
The Commission published the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content. For deployers, the practical change is not a new standalone law. It is a clearer implementation reference for labelling deepfakes and certain AI-generated or manipulated public-interest text, plus evidence fields such as label wording, placement, icon consideration, and accessibility.
What is the difference between provider marking and deployer labelling?
Provider marking concerns machine-readable marking and detection for AI-generated or manipulated outputs. Deployer labelling concerns public-facing disclosure for deepfakes and certain AI-generated or manipulated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest. A deployer evidence file should show which side of that split was reviewed.
Do EU icons prove Article 50 compliance?
No. EU icons can support clearer labelling, but the deployer still needs a disclosure process. Record where the label appears, when the person sees it, whether it is accessible, what text accompanies it, and who approved the notice. Icon use alone should not be described as compliance proof.

Source and review note

Last reviewed: 23 June 2026. Source basis: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Article 50, the European Commission Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content published on 10 June 2026, European Commission signing instructions for the Code, and the European Commission EU icons page for labelling AI-generated content. The Code is voluntary implementation support. Article 50 transparency obligations remain legal obligations where they apply. EU icons are optional labelling aids and do not establish legal compliance by themselves. This page provides operational planning guidance, not legal advice, certification advice, audit assurance, or a compliance guarantee.