The EU AI Act Newsletter #105: Transparency Tools Land

Welcome to the EU AI Act Newsletter, a brief biweekly newsletter by the Future of Life Institute providing you with up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU artificial intelligence law.

EP approves simplification measures and “nudifier” app ban: The European Parliament has granted final approval, by 423 votes to 57 with 174 abstentions, to amendments to the EU AI Act under the digital omnibus package. Most notably, the legislation postpones obligations on high-risk AI systems, which will now apply from 2 December 2027 for stand-alone systems and from 2 August 2028 for those embedded as safety components covered by EU sectoral legislation. Alongside this, watermarking obligations on AI-generated content are delayed until 2 December 2026 for systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026. The law furthermore bans AI systems generating child sexual abuse material or non-consensual intimate imagery, giving companies until 2 December 2026 to comply. Additional changes streamline requirements for machinery, clarify the “safety component” definition, permit bias-detection data processing, and extend SME exemptions to small mid-caps.

EU icons for labelling AI-generated content: The European Commission has developed a set of icons that creators, publishers and other deployers of generative AI systems may use to label their AI-generated content, in line with the AI Act’s transparency rules. These freely available icons, a key component of Section 2 of the Code of Practice on marking and labelling AI-generated content, aim to help people recognise artificially generated or manipulated content, thereby supporting public trust and reducing the risk of misinformation. The icons specifically support compliance with Article 50(4), which requires disclosure of deep fakes and certain published text on matters of public interest. However, exceptions apply to evidently artistic or satirical works, uses authorised by law, and text subject to human editorial control. While the icons are optional, the labelling obligations themselves are not, and the use of these icons does not by itself establish legal compliance.

Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content FAQs: Two sets of frequently asked questions published by the European Commission explain the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content, released in June 2026, which helps providers and deployers of generative AI systems comply with the AI Act’s obligations for labelling and marking such content. The first set sets out what the Code is, how it was drafted and who was involved, how providers and deployers can adhere to it and the benefits, whether it imposes obligations beyond the AI Act, and its interplay with the forthcoming Article 50 Guidelines. The second set then addresses the signing process, covering eligibility, how to sign, the submission deadline, who should sign the form, whether providers can join after 22 July 2026, the rationale for the Commission and Board assessments, partial participation, the benefits, the consequences of not signing, and how signatories may withdraw.

Cate Blanchett launches Human Consent Registry in European Parliament: Maximilian Henning, Euractiv tech reporter, describes how Oscar-winning actress Cate Blanchett unveiled a tool in the European Parliament to allow people to declare whether, and under what conditions, AI systems may use their likeness. The initiative speaks to longstanding disputes over AI models that draw on people’s identities or work without permission, which have prompted creatives to sue firms such as OpenAI and to demand new rules. Blanchett praised the AI Act for demonstrating that innovation and rights can coexist, arguing that consent is not an obstacle to creativity. Her “Human Consent Registry” lets individuals signal, in machine-readable form, whether AI companies may use their likeness or should ask or pay first. However, she acknowledged that the registry is voluntary, so companies must agree to honour it, though she suggested it could later become part of the practical infrastructure supporting binding laws.

How to fix European Union artificial intelligence regulation: Mario Mariniello, Bruegel Non-resident Fellow, argues that EU AI regulation should trade a lower ex-ante burden for robust ex-post monitoring, judicial review and liability in order to curb harms without stifling markets. He explains that the AI Act was conceived as a traditional ex-ante product safety regulation, requiring AI systems to meet certain requirements before deployment. However, because AI operates in unknown environments and takes unforeseen actions, he contends that such an ex-ante regime cannot effectively safeguard against unforeseeable harm and risks replicating the GDPR’s contribution to market concentration by disproportionately burdening smaller firms. To rebalance the regime, he proposes revising the Act towards a mix of ex-ante and ex-post measures, reducing compliance costs for most suppliers while introducing ex-post judicial review grounded in an ad-hoc AI liability framework, alongside new monitoring and enforcement tools.

The AI Transparency Code of Practice explained: Natalia Garina, legal researcher and consultant, examines in Tech Policy Press the final version of the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content. She explains that the Code, developed by independent experts in a multi-stakeholder process coordinated by the AI Office, supports compliance with the transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act. Once endorsed by the Commission and AI Board, signatories may rely on it to demonstrate compliance. However, Garina notes that adherence remains voluntary and is no guarantee of compliance. She also cautions that the Code leaves several issues unresolved, since key concepts rely on case-by-case assessments rather than clear criteria, and the Code itself acknowledges current technological limitations in marking and detection tools.

Potential avenues for redress for AI-related harms under the GDPR: Laura Lazaro Cabrera and Magdalena Maier of CDT Europe explore how the General Data Protection Regulation can provide redress for AI-related harms, given that the AI Act itself offers only limited remedies and largely relies on other areas of EU law. As a tech-agnostic law, they explain, the GDPR applies wherever personal data is processed, which makes it valuable in edge cases where technologies may not clearly meet the AI Act’s contested definitions. Notably, the GDPR bans consequential decisions based solely on automated processing, a prohibition broader in scope than the AI Act’s, subject to some exceptions. Regarding the right to an explanation, the authors observe that the two regimes complement one another, though the AI Act confines this right to a finite set of high-risk deployments.