What if you do not comply with Article 50: enforcement and fines since 2 August 2026

The transparency obligations under Article 50 of the AI Act are enforceable since 2 August 2026. Anyone who breaches them risks a fine of up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of total worldwide annual turnover over the preceding financial year, whichever of those two amounts is higher, or for SMEs, start-ups and small mid-caps whichever is lower. The duty was not postponed by the Digital Omnibus: it has applied since that date, with a transition until 2 December 2026 only for the machine-readable marking under paragraph 2 for systems already on the market before 2 August 2026. Enforcement generally sits with the national market surveillance authorities designated by the member states; for AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model from the same provider and for systems in very large online platforms or search engines, the AI Office is exclusively competent (Article 75(1)).

This page accompanies our practical overview of Article 50 and the guide to the provider and deployer split. Below you will find since when Article 50 has been enforceable, how high the fines can run, who enforces, and why this regime works differently from the high-risk regime.

Since when has Article 50 been enforceable?

The transparency obligations under Article 50 apply and are enforceable since 2 August 2026. That is not an intention or a target date, but the date on which the authority can act. The Digital Omnibus did not move this date. Anyone who has not yet acted has no transition period to fall back on, apart from the limited one for the marking under paragraph 2.

The duty itself is also direct in nature. Unlike high-risk systems, you do not have to work through a long chain of preparation. Depending on your role, you disclose that someone is interacting with AI, mark synthetic output, inform about emotion recognition or disclose deepfakes and certain AI text: clearly, at the latest at the first interaction or exposure, and accessibly (Article 50(5)). Precisely because the duty is so concrete, a shortcoming is also easy to establish.

How high can the fines run?

For a breach of provider or deployer obligations, including those under Article 50, the authority can impose a fine of up to 15 million euro or 3 percent of total worldwide annual turnover over the preceding financial year, whichever of those two amounts is higher, or for SMEs, start-ups and small mid-caps whichever is lower. This follows from Article 99 of the AI Act.

That figure does not stand on its own. The AI Act sets several fine levels, depending on what is breached.

By way of comparison: a breach of the prohibited practices under Article 5 carries the highest level, up to 35 million euro or 7 percent. Supplying incorrect or misleading information to authorities can cost up to 7.5 million euro or 1 percent. For SMEs and start-ups, the lower of the percentage or the fixed amount applies in each case; for small mid-caps the same applies to the 15 million and 7.5 million euro levels (Article 99(6a)).

Who enforces Article 50?

Enforcement generally sits with the national market surveillance authorities designated by the member states; for AI systems based on a general-purpose AI model from the same provider and for systems in very large online platforms or search engines, the AI Office is exclusively competent (Article 75(1)). They assess whether the use of AI was disclosed in time, clearly and accessibly, and they can impose the fines under Article 99. Which authorities these are depends on the national designation; in the Netherlands it has not yet been laid down by law.

For your organisation, this means you must be able to show the authority that you comply. A verbal assurance or an internal assumption is not evidence. In practice you must be able to show that the disclosure was timely and clear; the authority can request information on it.

Why Article 50 is not a high-risk regime

Article 50 is not a high-risk regime. There is no conformity assessment, no technical documentation under Annex IV, and no registration in an EU database. The duties are more direct than that: per paragraph a concrete notice, marking or disclosure, clearly, at the latest at the first interaction or exposure, and accessibly.

That distinction matters because it determines the nature of your preparation. For a high-risk system you invest in an extensive file. For Article 50 you invest in a simple but consistently applied disclosure and in the evidence that you actually provide it. Anyone who confuses this with the heavier high-risk obligations is building the wrong file.

What should you do now?

Organisations that arrange this now limit the duration of any shortcoming, and duration and remediation weigh in the level of a fine (Article 99(7)).

Want to determine which obligation applies to your own use case? Walk through the Article 50 decision tree: per role and use case the paragraph, the steps from the guidelines and examples of good notices.