{"answer_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:answer:verplichtingen-gebruiksverantwoordelijke-ai-act","canonical_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/verplichtingen-gebruiksverantwoordelijke-ai-act","query":"Which AI Act obligations apply to a deployer?","lang":"en","view":"full","mode":"form","question":"Which AI Act obligations apply to a deployer?","situation":"The knowledge base holds 8 obligations for which a deployer is the duty holder. Of those, 7 apply today and 1 arrives later. Every obligation below points back to the official text, with the version and the date on which we verified it.","likely_role":"deployer","note":null,"matched_terms":[],"dataset":{"id":"praxikon:sys:registry:dataset:ai-act-implementation-graph","version":"2.2.0","schema_version":"1.5.0","effective_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","known_at":"2026-09-06T00:00:00.000Z","last_reviewed_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z","licence":"https://www.praxikon.com/nl/legal/terms","canonical_url":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/entities"},"obligations":[{"slug":"article-111-legacy-public-systems","label":"Article 111(2): legacy high-risk systems and the 2 August 2030 date","summary":"High-risk AI systems placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III, since the Digital Omnibus 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems, come under the high-risk requirements of that Chapter only once their design is significantly changed as from that date. This is not an exemption from the whole Regulation: Article 4 and Article 50 keep running. For systems intended to be used by public authorities the carve out falls away entirely: their providers and deployers must in any case comply with the requirements and obligations by 2 August 2030.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2030-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-111-legacy-public-systems","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Without prejudice to the application of Article 5 as referred to in Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), this Regulation shall apply to operators of high-risk AI systems, other than the systems referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, that have been placed on the market or put into service before the date of application of Chapter III referred to in Article 113, only if, as from that date, those systems are subject to significant changes in their designs. In any case, the providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems intended to be used by public authorities shall take the necessary steps to comply with the requirements and obligations laid down in this Regulation by 2 August 2030.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amended Article 111(2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Chapter III, Sections 1, 2 and 3, with the exception of Article 6(5), applies from 2 December 2027 as regards AI systems classified as high-risk pursuant to Article 6(2) and Annex III, and from 2 August 2028 as regards AI systems classified as high-risk pursuant to Article 6(1) and Annex I.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amended Article 113 application dates","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, that have been placed on the market before 2 August 2026 shall take the necessary steps in order to comply with Article 50(2) by 2 December 2026.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"New Article 111(4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"The grace period in paragraph 2 applies where the type and model of an AI system has already been placed on the market. If at least one individual unit was lawfully placed on the market or put into service before the cut off date, the grace period also covers other units of the same type and model, which may be offered without additional obligations, requirements or mandatory additional certification, as long as the design remains unchanged. On a significant change to the design after the cut off date the provider must fully comply with all relevant provisions applicable to high-risk AI systems, including the conformity assessment requirements.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Recital 39 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"In practice this provision is read exactly the wrong way round. Executives hear that existing systems are left alone and conclude that nothing is needed until well into the 2030s. That is wrong in two ways. For a public sector organisation the second sentence gives no escape but a deadline, and it applies whether or not you change anything about the system. And for everyone the transitional rule concerns only the high-risk requirements: Article 4 has been running since February 2025 and Article 50 since August 2026, with legacy generative systems having only until 2 December 2026 to get the machine-readable marking of Article 50(2) in order. The first sentence, moreover, is not a resting place but a switch. As soon as the design is significantly changed you must comply fully with what applies to high-risk systems, the conformity assessment first of all; those duties do follow the shifted calendar of 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028. That switching moment rarely arises at a time you choose: it arises on a supplier update, a migration or a new data source. Two things therefore matter more than the date itself. You need to know when the first unit of each type and model reached the market, because that is the decisive date and without it you cannot later show which track a system was on. And you need a moment in your change process at which someone assesses whether a change is significant, before it goes live.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amended Article 111(2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"In practice this provision is read exactly the wrong way round. Executives hear that existing systems are left alone and conclude that nothing is needed until well into the 2030s. That is wrong in two ways. For a public sector organisation the second sentence gives no escape but a deadline, and it applies whether or not you change anything about the system. And for everyone the transitional rule concerns only the high-risk requirements: Article 4 has been running since February 2025 and Article 50 since August 2026, with legacy generative systems having only until 2 December 2026 to get the machine-readable marking of Article 50(2) in order. The first sentence, moreover, is not a resting place but a switch. As soon as the design is significantly changed you must comply fully with what applies to high-risk systems, the conformity assessment first of all; those duties do follow the shifted calendar of 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028. That switching moment rarely arises at a time you choose: it arises on a supplier update, a migration or a new data source. Two things therefore matter more than the date itself. You need to know when the first unit of each type and model reached the market, because that is the decisive date and without it you cannot later show which track a system was on. And you need a moment in your change process at which someone assesses whether a change is significant, before it goes live.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Recital 39 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"In practice this provision is read exactly the wrong way round. Executives hear that existing systems are left alone and conclude that nothing is needed until well into the 2030s. That is wrong in two ways. For a public sector organisation the second sentence gives no escape but a deadline, and it applies whether or not you change anything about the system. And for everyone the transitional rule concerns only the high-risk requirements: Article 4 has been running since February 2025 and Article 50 since August 2026, with legacy generative systems having only until 2 December 2026 to get the machine-readable marking of Article 50(2) in order. The first sentence, moreover, is not a resting place but a switch. As soon as the design is significantly changed you must comply fully with what applies to high-risk systems, the conformity assessment first of all; those duties do follow the shifted calendar of 2 December 2027 and 2 August 2028. That switching moment rarely arises at a time you choose: it arises on a supplier update, a migration or a new data source. Two things therefore matter more than the date itself. You need to know when the first unit of each type and model reached the market, because that is the decisive date and without it you cannot later show which track a system was on. And you need a moment in your change process at which someone assesses whether a change is significant, before it goes live.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"New Article 111(4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Determine per type and model of your high-risk AI systems when the first unit was placed on the market or put into service, and whether the system is intended to be used by public authorities. Record that determination with a date and a reasoning, and note which route applies, because that decides whether your cut off is 2 December 2027 or 2 August 2028. For the systems intended for public authority use, set a plan towards 2 August 2030 that counts back from the conformity assessment and the registration, not from the end date. Also build into your change and release process a review moment at which someone records whether an intended design change is significant, before the change goes into production. Separately, check whether Article 111(4) catches you: if so you have until 2 December 2026 for the marking under Article 50(2).","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amended Article 111(2)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Determine per type and model of your high-risk AI systems when the first unit was placed on the market or put into service, and whether the system is intended to be used by public authorities. Record that determination with a date and a reasoning, and note which route applies, because that decides whether your cut off is 2 December 2027 or 2 August 2028. For the systems intended for public authority use, set a plan towards 2 August 2030 that counts back from the conformity assessment and the registration, not from the end date. Also build into your change and release process a review moment at which someone records whether an intended design change is significant, before the change goes into production. Separately, check whether Article 111(4) catches you: if so you have until 2 December 2026 for the marking under Article 50(2).","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amended Article 113 application dates","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Determine per type and model of your high-risk AI systems when the first unit was placed on the market or put into service, and whether the system is intended to be used by public authorities. Record that determination with a date and a reasoning, and note which route applies, because that decides whether your cut off is 2 December 2027 or 2 August 2028. For the systems intended for public authority use, set a plan towards 2 August 2030 that counts back from the conformity assessment and the registration, not from the end date. Also build into your change and release process a review moment at which someone records whether an intended design change is significant, before the change goes into production. Separately, check whether Article 111(4) catches you: if so you have until 2 December 2026 for the marking under Article 50(2).","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"New Article 111(4)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}]},{"slug":"article-26-deployer-obligations","label":"Article 26: obligations of deployers of high-risk AI systems","summary":"Twelve paragraphs governing day-to-day use: use in line with the instructions, human oversight by competent people, input data, monitoring and notification, log retention, informing workers before deployment, registration by public authorities and informing the people about whom decisions are made.","legal_status":"upcoming","deadline_at":"2027-12-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-26-deployer-obligations","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Article 26 imposes twelve paragraphs on deployers of high-risk AI systems. Paragraph 1 requires appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure use in accordance with the accompanying instructions for use. Paragraph 2 requires assigning human oversight to natural persons who have the necessary competence, training and authority, as well as the necessary support. Paragraph 3 leaves other obligations and the freedom to organise one's own resources unaffected. Paragraph 4 requires, to the extent the deployer exercises control over the input data, that such data is relevant and sufficiently representative in view of the intended purpose. Paragraph 5 requires monitoring on the basis of the instructions for use and informing the provider in accordance with Article 72; where there is reason to consider that use may result in a risk within the meaning of Article 79(1), the deployer shall without undue delay inform the provider or distributor and the relevant market surveillance authority and suspend use, and upon identifying a serious incident shall immediately inform first the provider and then the importer or distributor and the market surveillance authorities. Paragraph 6 requires keeping the automatically generated logs under the deployer's control for a period appropriate to the intended purpose and of at least six months, unless Union or national law provides otherwise. Paragraph 7 requires deployers who are employers to inform workers' representatives and the affected workers, before putting into service or using the system at the workplace, that they will be subject to its use. Paragraph 8 imposes the registration obligations of Article 49 on public authorities and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and prohibits use of a system not registered in the EU database referred to in Article 71. Paragraph 9 links the information provided under Article 13 to the data protection impact assessment under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Paragraph 10 sets additional conditions for post-remote biometric identification in law enforcement. Paragraph 11 opens with the words without prejudice to Article 50 of this Regulation and requires deployers of Annex III systems that make or assist in making decisions related to natural persons to inform those persons that they are subject to the use of the system; for high-risk AI systems used for law enforcement purposes Article 13 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 applies. The transparency obligations of Article 50 have applied since 2 August 2026 and are separate from the date on which paragraph 11 starts to apply. Paragraph 12 requires cooperation with the competent authorities.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 26(1)-(12)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"The 2 December 2027 date invites postponement, but two elements are preparation work today. Paragraph 7 requires you to inform workers' representatives and the affected workers before the system is put into service at the workplace, and that information is provided, where applicable, in line with existing rules and practice on informing workers. That touches employee participation, and such a process takes months rather than weeks in practice, so a system that must go live in 2027 is discussed in 2026. Paragraph 2 also connects to the human oversight that Article 14 imposes on system design: you must designate natural persons with competence, training, authority and support. That is emphatically not the same as the measures obligation in Article 4. Article 4 requires measures supporting AI literacy and does not require you to guarantee a particular level for individuals; Article 26(2) requires identifiable overseers with a mandate. Conflating the two leaves you believing a generic e-learning is enough while still having no overseer with room to decide. A third underestimated element is paragraph 11: informing the people about whom an Annex III system makes or helps make decisions is visible customer or candidate communication that you have to design across your own organisation.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 26(1)-(12)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Draw up now a list of the systems likely to qualify as high-risk from 2 December 2027 and add three columns: who exercises human oversight and with what mandate, when you will inform the works council and the affected workers, and how the persons concerned will receive the notice under paragraph 11. Plan the employee participation process a year ahead.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 26(1)-(12)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}]},{"slug":"article-4-ai-literacy","label":"Article 4: AI literacy","summary":"Providers and deployers take measures that support the development of AI literacy.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-4-ai-literacy","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Since 27 July 2026, providers and deployers must take measures supporting the development of AI literacy. The provision does not require a guaranteed individual level.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amendment of Article 4; entry into force 27 July 2026","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"Evidence is primarily a proportionate record of measures by role and context, not one prescribed course or certificate.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-literacy-qa","source_locator":"Questions on measures, formats, certificates and records","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers","eli":null},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Inventory roles and AI systems, select appropriate measures and record the choice, implementation and periodic review.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-literacy-qa","source_locator":"Implementation examples and evidence guidance","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers","eli":null}]},{"slug":"article-4a-bias-testing-legal-basis","label":"Article 4a: legal basis for bias testing with special categories of personal data","summary":"Article 4a grants permission rather than instruction, and to two different sets of parties. Paragraph 1 allows only the provider of a high-risk AI system to process special categories of personal data by way of exception, to the extent strictly necessary for bias detection and correction within the meaning of Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), and only where all six conditions (a) to (f) are met. Paragraph 2 opens the same room to providers and deployers of other AI systems and models and to deployers of high-risk systems, but only for bias likely to affect the health and safety of persons, to have a negative impact on fundamental rights or to lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, and subject to the same six conditions. Until 27 July 2026 this basis sat in Article 10(5).","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":null,"high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-4a-bias-testing-legal-basis","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Paragraph 1 provides that, to the extent strictly necessary to ensure bias detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems in accordance with Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), of this Regulation, providers of such systems may exceptionally process special categories of personal data, subject to appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons. In addition to the provisions set out in Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, as applicable, all the following conditions shall be met in order for such processing to occur: (a) the bias detection and correction cannot be effectively fulfilled by processing other data, including synthetic or anonymised data; (b) the special categories of personal data are subject to technical limitations on the re-use of personal data, and state-of-the-art security and privacy-preserving measures, including pseudonymisation; (c) the special categories of personal data are subject to measures to ensure that the personal data processed are secured and protected, subject to suitable safeguards, including strict controls and documentation of the access, to avoid misuse and to ensure that only authorised persons have access to those personal data with appropriate confidentiality obligations; (d) the special categories of personal data are not transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties; (e) the special categories of personal data are deleted once the bias has been corrected or the personal data has reached the end of its retention period, whichever comes first; and (f) the records of processing activities pursuant to Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680 include the reasons why the processing of special categories of personal data was strictly necessary to detect and correct biases, and why that objective could not be achieved by processing other data.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 6, inserting Article 4a: Article 4a(1), points (a) to (f), and Article 4a(2), points (a) and (b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 inserts Article 4a into Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 by Article 1, point 6, and deletes Article 10(5) by Article 1, point 9(b). The same point 9 replaces Article 10(1) and Article 10(6) so that they now refer to the quality criteria in Article 4a(1). The basis therefore no longer sits with the requirements for high-risk systems in Chapter III, but as a standalone article in Chapter I, immediately after Article 4, while Article 10 refers back to it from the outside. In the Dutch language version of the Official Journal the inserted article is numbered \"artikel 4 bis\"; \"Article 4a\" is the English numbering of the same provision.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 6 (insertion) and point 9 (Article 10 amended, paragraph 5 deleted)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"The same amending Regulation replaces Article 2(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 by Article 1, point 2(b). Since 27 July 2026 that paragraph reads: \"Union law on the protection of personal data, privacy and the confidentiality of communications applies to personal data processed in connection with the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation. Without prejudice to Articles 4a and 59 of this Regulation, this Regulation shall not affect Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or (EU) 2018/1725, or Directive 2002/58/EC or (EU) 2016/680.\" The previous version of that paragraph carried no such reservation for Article 4a.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 2(b), replacing Article 2(7)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Recital 9 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 states that bias detection and correction constitute a substantial public interest, that the extended legal basis is subject to the same limitations, conditions and safeguards as the existing Article 10(5), and that this thereby ensures compliance with Article 9(2), point (g), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Article 10(2), point (g), of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 and Article 10, point (a), of Directive (EU) 2016/680. The same recital states that the legal basis established by Article 4a should apply from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, so as to enable providers of high-risk AI systems lawfully to undertake bias detection and correction activities in preparation for compliance with the requirements for high-risk AI systems. Article 4 of the amending Regulation governs only entry into force on the third day following publication and provides for no deferred application; the amended Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), provides that Chapters I and II apply from 2 February 2025, with the exception of Article 5(1), first subparagraph, points (ba) and (bb), and Article 5(1a) and (1b), which apply from 2 December 2026. Article 4a sits in Chapter I and falls outside that exception.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Recital 9, Article 4 (entry into force) and Article 1, point 40(a), replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (a)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"Three things matter more in practice than the relocation itself. The first is that this article instructs you to do nothing. Paragraph 2 says so in as many words, and no date by which anything must be done belongs with it either. The second, and the more dangerous misreading, is that the move into Chapter I means you may now start collecting sensitive attributes because you want to run fairness measurements. What has widened is the set of parties, not the room inside the basis: recital 9 expressly states that the same limitations, conditions and safeguards apply as under the former Article 10(5). In practice it therefore starts with a written justification of why synthetic or anonymised data do not suffice, and not with assembling a dataset. The third is the condition that bites hardest and appears in no summary: point (d) provides that the data are not transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties. That is in effect a ban on outsourcing. An external fairness vendor, a bias auditing firm, a research partner or a cloud party that can reach the data itself does not fit inside this basis, however good the contract. Anyone who intended to buy in their bias testing must run it in house here, or work with data that are not a special category. Finally, watch your own documentation: records of processing, data protection impact assessments and AI policy documents that refer to Article 10(5) have been referring to a deleted provision since 27 July 2026. The same holds for documents citing Article 2(7) to argue that the GDPR prevails without qualification: that paragraph too has been replaced and now expressly reserves Articles 4a and 59. Two dates to close on, and the second is our inference rather than source text. Article 4a sits in Chapter I, which under Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), has applied since 2 February 2025, but the provision only entered the text on 27 July 2026; we therefore treat 27 July 2026 as the day the basis actually became available, while recital 9 states that it should apply from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Finally, note that the requirements in Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), which paragraph 1 refers to, themselves only start to apply on 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. The basis therefore deliberately runs ahead of the duty you use it for, exactly as recital 9 intends.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 6, inserting Article 4a: Article 4a(1), points (a) to (f), and Article 4a(2), points (a) and (b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"Three things matter more in practice than the relocation itself. The first is that this article instructs you to do nothing. Paragraph 2 says so in as many words, and no date by which anything must be done belongs with it either. The second, and the more dangerous misreading, is that the move into Chapter I means you may now start collecting sensitive attributes because you want to run fairness measurements. What has widened is the set of parties, not the room inside the basis: recital 9 expressly states that the same limitations, conditions and safeguards apply as under the former Article 10(5). In practice it therefore starts with a written justification of why synthetic or anonymised data do not suffice, and not with assembling a dataset. The third is the condition that bites hardest and appears in no summary: point (d) provides that the data are not transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties. That is in effect a ban on outsourcing. An external fairness vendor, a bias auditing firm, a research partner or a cloud party that can reach the data itself does not fit inside this basis, however good the contract. Anyone who intended to buy in their bias testing must run it in house here, or work with data that are not a special category. Finally, watch your own documentation: records of processing, data protection impact assessments and AI policy documents that refer to Article 10(5) have been referring to a deleted provision since 27 July 2026. The same holds for documents citing Article 2(7) to argue that the GDPR prevails without qualification: that paragraph too has been replaced and now expressly reserves Articles 4a and 59. Two dates to close on, and the second is our inference rather than source text. Article 4a sits in Chapter I, which under Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), has applied since 2 February 2025, but the provision only entered the text on 27 July 2026; we therefore treat 27 July 2026 as the day the basis actually became available, while recital 9 states that it should apply from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Finally, note that the requirements in Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), which paragraph 1 refers to, themselves only start to apply on 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. The basis therefore deliberately runs ahead of the duty you use it for, exactly as recital 9 intends.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 2(b), replacing Article 2(7)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"Three things matter more in practice than the relocation itself. The first is that this article instructs you to do nothing. Paragraph 2 says so in as many words, and no date by which anything must be done belongs with it either. The second, and the more dangerous misreading, is that the move into Chapter I means you may now start collecting sensitive attributes because you want to run fairness measurements. What has widened is the set of parties, not the room inside the basis: recital 9 expressly states that the same limitations, conditions and safeguards apply as under the former Article 10(5). In practice it therefore starts with a written justification of why synthetic or anonymised data do not suffice, and not with assembling a dataset. The third is the condition that bites hardest and appears in no summary: point (d) provides that the data are not transmitted, transferred or otherwise accessed by other parties. That is in effect a ban on outsourcing. An external fairness vendor, a bias auditing firm, a research partner or a cloud party that can reach the data itself does not fit inside this basis, however good the contract. Anyone who intended to buy in their bias testing must run it in house here, or work with data that are not a special category. Finally, watch your own documentation: records of processing, data protection impact assessments and AI policy documents that refer to Article 10(5) have been referring to a deleted provision since 27 July 2026. The same holds for documents citing Article 2(7) to argue that the GDPR prevails without qualification: that paragraph too has been replaced and now expressly reserves Articles 4a and 59. Two dates to close on, and the second is our inference rather than source text. Article 4a sits in Chapter I, which under Article 113, third paragraph, point (a), has applied since 2 February 2025, but the provision only entered the text on 27 July 2026; we therefore treat 27 July 2026 as the day the basis actually became available, while recital 9 states that it should apply from the date of entry into application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. Finally, note that the requirements in Article 10(2), points (f) and (g), which paragraph 1 refers to, themselves only start to apply on 2 December 2027 for Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems. The basis therefore deliberately runs ahead of the duty you use it for, exactly as recital 9 intends.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Recital 9, Article 4 (entry into force) and Article 1, point 40(a), replacing Article 113, third paragraph, point (a)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Carry out the data protection impact assessment before you start. Processing special categories at scale for bias testing engages Article 35 GDPR in almost every case, and Article 4a does not remove that assessment: it supplies the legal basis, not the risk appraisal. Then record, per processing operation, which paragraph of Article 4a you rely on, for which system or model, why synthetic or anonymised data do not suffice, which technical and organisational safeguards apply, who has access and at what point the data are deleted. In the same pass, review your record of processing activities, your impact assessments and your AI policy documents for references to Article 10(5) and replace them with Article 4a. Set the deletion moment as a monitored deadline rather than an intention, verify that no external party can reach the data, and align the justification with your data protection officer.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Article 1, point 6, inserting Article 4a: Article 4a(1), points (a) to (f), and Article 4a(2), points (a) and (b)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"}]},{"slug":"article-5-prohibited-practices","label":"Article 5: prohibited practices","summary":"The prohibition of AI practices carrying unacceptable risk, such as manipulation, social scoring and certain biometric applications.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2025-02-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-5-prohibited-practices","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"The prohibited practices of Article 5 apply since 2 February 2025 and are the only AI Act category enforceable for that entire period. Violations carry the highest fine ceiling in the regulation: up to 35 million euro or 7 percent of worldwide annual turnover.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5, Article 99(3) and Article 113(a)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"The Digital Omnibus adds a prohibition on AI for child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate synthetic content; the accompanying technical safeguards are required by 2 December 2026.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","source_locator":"Amendment to Article 5 and transition to 2 December 2026","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"The line often sits in the definitional details: the same technique can be prohibited in the workplace and permitted in another context. Screen per concrete use and context, not per technology, and do so before procurement or go-live.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5(1)(a)-(h)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Make the Article 5 screening the first step of every classification and record the outcome per system in the register, including the reasoning why a practice does not fall under the prohibition.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 5 read with Article 6 classification order","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}]},{"slug":"article-50-transparency","label":"Article 50: transparency","summary":"Specific disclosure, marking and labelling duties for certain AI systems and synthetic content.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-50-transparency","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Article 50 applies since 2 August 2026. The precise duty differs by scenario: direct AI interaction, machine-readable marking, emotion recognition or biometric categorisation, deepfakes and certain public-interest text.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 50(1)-(5) and Article 113","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"A generic rule that all AI content must always carry a visible label is too broad. First classify the specific Article 50 scenario.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelines","source_locator":"Final guidelines, scope by Article 50 paragraph","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems","eli":null},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"For each system, record the applicable paragraph, responsible actor, implemented disclosure or marking and how it was tested.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelines","source_locator":"Implementation guidance for providers and deployers","source_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems","eli":null}]},{"slug":"article-85-right-to-complain","label":"Article 85: right to lodge a complaint with the market surveillance authority","summary":"Anyone with grounds to consider that the Regulation has been infringed may lodge a complaint with the relevant market surveillance authority. For an organisation that means your own staff, customers and candidates have a route to the regulator that does not run through you.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":null,"human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-85-right-to-complain","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Without prejudice to other administrative or judicial remedies, any natural or legal person having grounds to consider that there has been an infringement of the provisions of this Regulation may submit complaints to the relevant market surveillance authority. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, such complaints shall be taken into account for the purpose of conducting market surveillance activities, and shall be handled in line with the dedicated procedures established therefor by the market surveillance authorities.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"The practical meaning of this article lies not in what it instructs you to do but in whom it gives a route. An employee who thinks the scheduling or appraisal system is wrong, a rejected candidate, a customer who feels mishandled: they do not have to convince you first and do not have to show standing. The complaint arrives at the authority, and the first question you then face is about record keeping: which system, which version, which assessment was carried out and when. That is the same record keeping Articles 26 and 72 already require of you, and that is exactly the point. Whoever has that file answers a complaint with documents; whoever does not answers it with a reconstruction after the fact, and a regulator reads that differently. Note too that this right does not depend on harm or on a decision, whereas the right to an explanation in Article 86 does.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Assume a complaint starts at the authority and not with you. Make sure that per AI system you can show which assessment was carried out, by whom, on what date and against which system version, and keep that as a living file rather than a one-off document. Also agree internally who receives a question from an authority and within what period.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 85","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}]},{"slug":"article-86-right-to-explanation","label":"Article 86: right to an explanation of a decision","summary":"A person affected by a decision that a deployer takes on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III may request an explanation of the role of that system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken.","legal_status":"applicable","deadline_at":"2026-08-02T00:00:00.000Z","high_risk_regime_from":"2027-12-02T00:00:00.000Z","human_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/verplichtingen/article-86-right-to-explanation","api":"https://www.praxikon.com/api/v1/obligations?lang=en","official_source":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","citations":[{"kind":"official_fact","statement":"Paragraph 1 gives any affected person subject to a decision taken by the deployer on the basis of the output of a high-risk AI system listed in Annex III, with the exception of point 2 of that Annex, and which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects that person in a way that they consider to have an adverse impact on their health, safety or fundamental rights, the right to obtain from the deployer clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and of the main elements of the decision taken. Paragraph 2 provides that paragraph 1 does not apply to the use of AI systems for which exceptions from, or restrictions to, that obligation follow from Union or national law in compliance with Union law. Paragraph 3 provides that this Article applies only to the extent that the right referred to in paragraph 1 is not otherwise provided for under Union law.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 86(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"editorial_interpretation","statement":"This right reaches you through a different channel than the rest of the Regulation. A regulator writes to you; a candidate or a citizen calls or emails, usually at your existing complaints or objections desk. That desk does not know today that an AI system was in the process, let alone what role it played, and that is where it goes wrong. Two things therefore matter more than the legal depth of the explanation itself: that your front line recognises such a request, and that it can be traced per decision which system in which version contributed to it. Without the second you can explain how your system works in general but not what happened in this case, and the latter is what is being asked. Note also the relationship with Article 22 GDPR: where that article already grants a right, Article 86 steps back, but the scope differs enough that you cannot settle the question in the abstract.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 86(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"},{"kind":"recommended_action","statement":"Record, per Annex III system that contributes to decisions about people, which decision was supported by which system version, and make sure your complaints or objections desk recognises a request for an explanation and routes it to someone who can answer it. Also determine per process whether Article 22 GDPR already grants a right, because Article 86 then steps back.","source_id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","source_locator":"Article 86(1)-(3)","source_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj"}]}],"conditional":[],"sources":[{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2024-1689","title":"EU Artificial Intelligence Act 2024/1689","publisher":"European Parliament and Council","canonical_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj","source_version":"original-oj-2024-07-12","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:reg-eu-2026-1744","title":"Digital Omnibus on AI 2026/1744","publisher":"European Parliament and Council","canonical_url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","eli":"http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj","source_version":"official-journal-2026-07-24","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-ai-literacy-qa","title":"AI literacy questions and answers","publisher":"European Commission","canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers","eli":null,"source_version":"updated-2026-07-27","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelines","title":"Guidelines on Article 50","publisher":"European Commission","canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems","eli":null,"source_version":"final-2026-07-20","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"},{"id":"praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-prohibited-practices-guidelines","title":"Guidelines on prohibited AI practices, C(2025) 5052 final","publisher":"European Commission","canonical_url":"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-prohibited-artificial-intelligence-ai-practices-defined-ai-act","eli":null,"source_version":"c-2025-5052-final-2025-07-29","verified_at":"2026-08-08T00:00:00.000Z"}],"first_actions":[{"label":"Assess for every design change whether it is significant","summary":"Fix a moment in your change and release process at which someone assesses and records whether an intended change to a legacy high-risk system is a significant change in its design, before the change goes into production."},{"label":"Assign human oversight and give those people a mandate","summary":"Name, per high-risk system, who exercises oversight, and ensure that person has the competence, training, authority and support to actually set the output aside."},{"label":"Take role- and context-specific AI literacy measures","summary":"Determine for each role, system and context which combination of instruction, guidance, practice or training is appropriate."}],"evidence":[{"label":"Transition register of legacy high-risk systems","summary":"Per type and model: the date the first unit was placed on the market or put into service, the route and therefore the cut off date, whether it is intended to be used by public authorities, which design changes have been made since that cut off, and per change the judgement whether it was significant with the reasoning and the date. This is the file that shows which track a system was on and why.","url":null},{"label":"Deployment dossier: logs, worker information and information to affected persons","summary":"The dossier that shows you retain the logs, that you informed workers and their representatives in time, and that the people about whom decisions are made are aware of it.","url":null},{"label":"AI literacy measures record","summary":"Versioned record of roles, context, measures, participation or instruction and review moments.","url":null}],"guidance":[{"label":"No mandatory course format, no certificate, no exam and no AI officer","statement":"The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that there is no one size fits all when it comes to AI literacy and that no strict requirements or mandatory trainings are imposed. On certification, the Q&A states literally that there is no need for a certificate and that organisations can keep an internal record of trainings or other guiding initiatives. On assessment, it states that Article 4 of the AI Act does not entail an obligation to measure the AI knowledge of employees. On governance, it states that no specific governance structure is mandated to comply with Article 4, so that unlike the data protection officer under the GDPR, no AI officer needs to be appointed. On the level, the Q&A states that following the Digital Omnibus amendment AI literacy remains an obligation for providers and deployers of AI systems, but that no specific or sufficient level is mandated and that the Regulation does not require guaranteeing any specific level of AI literacy of any individual. Against that, the Q&A states that simply relying on the AI systems' instructions for use or asking staff to read them might be ineffective, and that organisations should take into account general AI understanding within the organisation, whether they are a provider or a deployer, the risks associated with the systems deployed, staff knowledge gaps considering technical knowledge, experience, education and training, and contextual factors such as sector, purpose and affected populations. The Q&A further states that organisations may implement different levels of training or learning approaches depending on knowledge, experience, education and role, and that staff with a degree or experience in AI development are normally considered AI literate, while the organisation must still verify that those persons understand the specific AI systems of the organisation, know how to deal with them and are aware of all risks.","source_locator":"Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on required level, training formats, certificates, assessment of knowledge and governance structures (consulted 9 August 2026)"},{"label":"Article 4 reaches beyond your own staff, and the national supervisor enforces it","statement":"The Commission Q&A on AI literacy states that Article 4 applies to providers and deployers of AI systems and in addition to other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf, covering persons broadly within the organisational remit, with a contractor, a service provider and a client given as examples. On clients, the Q&A states that they may need AI literacy depending on the specific risk, reasoning that affected persons should understand how decisions taken with the assistance of AI will have an impact on them. On geographic scope, the Q&A states that the AI Act's legal framework applies to both public and private actors inside and outside the EU as long as the AI system is placed on the Union market, used in the Union, or its use has an impact on people located in the EU. On supervision, the Q&A states that the supervision and enforcement of Article 4 is not with the AI Office but under the remit of national market surveillance authorities, and that supervision and enforcement began on 2 August 2026, while Article 4 itself entered into application on 2 February 2025. On sanctions, the Q&A states that national market surveillance authorities could impose penalties and other enforcement measures for infringements of Article 4, that this will be based on national laws that Member States were due to adopt by 2 August 2025, that any sanction must be proportionate and based on the individual case taking into account factors such as the nature and gravity of the infringement and its intentional or negligent character, and that sanctions are more likely if there is proof of an incident due to a lack of appropriate training and guidance. Article 4 is not listed in the enumeration in Article 99(4) of the AI Act, which covers only Articles 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33(1), (3) and (4), 34 and 50, so the level of any penalty for Article 4 follows from national law rather than from the Regulation's own ceilings. The Q&A further states that Article 4 reinforces the transparency provisions of Article 13 and the human oversight provisions of Article 14 and indirectly contributes to the protection of affected persons, and that for deployers of high-risk systems the Article 26 obligation to ensure staff are trained to ensure human oversight is a distinct requirement; that requirement becomes applicable on 2 December 2027 for standalone Annex III systems and on 2 August 2028 for Annex I systems.","source_locator":"Commission Q&A on AI literacy, sections on target groups, geographic scope, supervision and enforcement, and sanctions (consulted 9 August 2026)"},{"label":"AI agents must disclose both their AI nature and on whose behalf they act","statement":"Point (31) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 states that AI agents are covered by Article 50(1) if they are capable of interacting with the persons instructing them or with other natural persons in the execution of their tasks, citing as examples making bookings, managing correspondence, negotiating or concluding contracts and executing purchases. That same point requires AI agents to be designed and developed so that they disclose both their artificial nature and the person on whose behalf they are acting, given the need for transparency of the origin and of the delegation of authority and accountability for the consequences of their actions. This also applies in complex multi-agent architectures in which other agents interact directly with natural persons. Where the provider cannot reliably determine before placing on the market or putting into service whether the agent will directly interact with a natural person, the agent should be designed at the architecture level and instructed to disclose itself in every situation where it is reasonably likely to interact with a natural person, including where that person represents a legal entity. Agents should also disclose themselves to the persons instructing them at key steps such as authorisation, reporting and validation, including where the agent receives, processes or relies upon outputs generated by other AI systems rather than by a natural person, and at every new interaction. Point (63) adds that Article 50(2) may apply to AI agents where the agent takes an action whose output is AI-generated or manipulated content perceptible by natural persons, while intermediate processing steps such as reasoning and chain of thought and non-perceptible actions such as a web request or browser action fall outside that scope.","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 3.1.1 point (31) and Section 4.1.2 point (63)"},{"label":"Artistic or satirical work is not exempt but attenuated, and the informative character always prevails","statement":"Point (119) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 describes an attenuated transparency obligation for deep fakes forming part of evidently artistic, creative, satirical, fictional or analogous works or programmes, where the obligation is limited to disclosure in an appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work. Point (120) describes the categories: artistic works are created for the purpose of art, including music, cinematographic works and visual arts; creative works involve creative choices, while works mainly motivated by functional or technical considerations cannot be regarded as creative; satirical works are intended to criticise society, politics, business or public figures through humoristic techniques; fictional works involve persons, objects, places, entities or events in an imaginary but verisimilitude setting; analogous works share core traits with those categories without fitting neatly into one. Point (122) states that it must be evident to the natural persons exposed to it that the content falls within one of those categories, that the categories must therefore be interpreted strictly given the lighter disclosure regime and the interests of freedom of expression and freedom of the arts and sciences, and that content whose nature is potentially unclear or ambiguous to the audience falls outside this lighter regime. Relevant factors, per that same point, are whether the content displays formats or styles characteristic of the category, the context in which it is presented, and audience expectations. That same point excludes content whose nature is exclusively informative or commercial and recognisable as such, citing news reporting, notes that advertisements or documentaries may be regarded as evidently creative or fictional in certain specific situations but not in others because the assessment is case-specific, and states that where the deep fake combines multiple characters, for example informative and creative, the informative character should always prevail and the standard labelling requirements apply. Point (123) stresses that these deep fakes are not excluded from the obligation: the deployer must still disclose the AI origin or manipulation, but may do so in an appropriate manner, and must in any case comply with Article 50(5). Point (124) states that reliance on the attenuated obligation cannot justify failing to respect the fundamental rights of individuals or the rights of rightsholders under Union intellectual property or data protection law. As examples within the categories the document cites movies featuring AI de-aged existing actors or digital replicas of deceased actors, AI-generated music in the style of existing artists, and an AI-manipulated image of an existing politician in a scene clearly meant as humorous criticism. Outside the categories the document places among others an AI-manipulated video in the style of a teleshopping channel, AI-generated images of celebrities implying involvement in activities that never happened, and an AI-manipulated video featuring a realistic synthetic influencer focused solely on displaying a sponsored product's functionalities.","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.1.3, points (119) to (124) and the accompanying example lists"}],"examples":[{"label":"AI articles on EU policy without substantive review","situation":"A website automatically publishes AI-generated articles about European policy. There is an editorial charter on paper, but nobody reviews the substance. Before publication only a spell check runs, and a second AI model reviews the text.","outcome":"The final Commission guidelines on Article 50 treat this case as a worked example under the transparency obligations. The document is non-binding.","lesson":"An editorial charter on paper, a spell check and a second AI model do not count as human review, so without substantive fact checking by a person you must label the publication.","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, 20.7.2026, worked examples under Article 50","provenance":"official"},{"label":"AI summary of a council decision under editorial control","situation":"A news site places an AI-generated summary beneath a journalist's article about a recent town council decision. The editor in chief reads the summary on substance, checks the facts and signs off for publication.","outcome":"The final Commission guidelines on Article 50 treat this case as a worked example under the transparency obligations. The document is non-binding.","lesson":"Do not rely on the editorial exception without substantive review by a competent person and a publicly identifiable holder of editorial responsibility, and note that any AI intervention after sign-off voids it.","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, 20.7.2026, worked examples under Article 50","provenance":"official"},{"label":"AI toy rewards children for dangerous challenges","situation":"A manufacturer markets an AI-powered toy that keeps children engaged by encouraging increasingly risky challenges, such as climbing furniture, exploring high shelves or handling sharp objects, in exchange for digital rewards and virtual praise.","outcome":"The Commission guidelines on prohibited AI practices treat this case as a worked example under Article 5. The document is non-binding: authoritative interpretation rests with the Court of Justice.","lesson":"If children are among your users, assess every engagement and reward mechanism separately, because what counts as acceptable stimulation for adults can already be exploitation of children's curiosity and desire for rewards.","source_locator":"Commission Guidelines C(2025) 5052 final, 29.7.2025, worked examples under Article 5","provenance":"official"},{"label":"Facial recognition at access control: the guard behind the camera counts too","situation":"An organisation secures the entrances to its buildings with facial recognition and uses that biometric access control to register visitors as well. When the system returns no match, a security officer reviews the camera images and decides personally whether someone may enter. The question is whose measures have to reach that officer: those of the supplier of the model, those of the department that deploys the system, or both.","outcome":"Article 4(1) provides that providers and deployers of AI systems shall take measures to support the development of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf. In doing so they must take into account technical knowledge, experience, education and training and the context the AI systems are to be used in, and consider the persons or groups of persons on whom the AI systems are to be used. The same provision states that this obligation does not require providers or deployers to guarantee any specific level of AI literacy of any individual.","lesson":"We read the phrase about the persons on whom the system is used as the centre of gravity for biometrics: whoever stands in front of the camera is subject to the outcome and has little to set against it. That argues for equipping the officer who decides for himself when no match comes back more substantively than the colleague who merely switches the system on and off. The article itself names no sufficient level and expressly states that you need not guarantee one, so where the floor lies for each role stays open. In our assessment a record kept per role, stating the choice made and the reason for it, is easier to defend than one organisation-wide session backed only by an attendance list.","source_locator":"Article 4(1)","provenance":"editorial"}],"standards":[],"definitions":[],"answer_page":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/verplichtingen-gebruiksverantwoordelijke-ai-act","follow_up_questions":[{"question":"We use AI to monitor or evaluate employees. What applies?","url":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/werknemers-monitoren"},{"question":"Does our AI use case fall under the prohibited practices?","url":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/verboden-praktijken-check"},{"question":"We are considering facial recognition or other biometrics. Is that allowed?","url":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/antwoord/biometrie-gezichtsherkenning"}],"disclaimer":"General interpretation, not legal advice. The official source remains authoritative.","methodology":"https://www.praxikon.com/en/methodologie"}