Signing the code of practice is voluntary, but not signing means proving it yourself

The Commission Q&A on signing the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content states that signing is voluntary and that not signing does not constitute non-compliance with the AI Act. That same Q&A states that the code has two sections, one for providers on marking AI-generated or manipulated content in machine-readable formats and the related detection mechanisms, and one for deployers on the disclosure and labelling of deep fakes and of certain AI-generated or manipulated text on matters of public interest. It further states that signatories may, subject to a positive assessment by the Commission and the AI Board, rely on the code to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under Article 50 regardless of their place of establishment, and that the deadline for inclusion in the initial list of signatories was 27 July 2026 at 18:00 CEST, with later signature remaining possible but not appearing on that initial list. The Commission guidelines of 20 July 2026 state in point (146) that providers and deployers within the scope of Article 50(2) and (4) may demonstrate compliance by adhering to a code of practice assessed as adequate under Article 50(7), and that such a code does not replace the Regulation or the guidelines but complements them as the only Union-wide recognised practical framework for that purpose. Point (147) states that compliance may also be demonstrated through other adequate means, that for signatories supervisory activities will focus on whether they have adhered to the code and implemented the measures it contains, and that opting out of sections results in losing the benefit of facilitated demonstration of compliance for that part. Point (148) states that non-signatories are expected to demonstrate through other adequate means how they comply with Article 50(2), (4) and (5) and to explain how their measures ensure compliance, for instance by carrying out a gap analysis comparing their measures with those set out in a code assessed as adequate, and that they will likely face more requests for information and for access. Point (149) states that competent authorities may take commitments implemented in line with a code assessed as adequate into account as a mitigating factor when setting the amount of fines. Point (150) states that if a code is not deemed adequate, the Commission may adopt an implementing act specifying common rules for the implementation of Article 50(2), (4) and (5).

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 8.1, points (146) to (150); Commission Q&A on signing the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content (consulted 9 August 2026)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

The voluntariness is real, but it is not free. The guidelines shift the burden of proof: signatories are assessed on whether they do what the code says, non-signatories must explain why their own approach suffices. That difference translates into work. Point (148) expects non-signatories to run a gap analysis against the code, which means you have to read the code and benchmark your measures against it either way. Not signing therefore saves you the signature, not the substance. On the other side, point (149) explicitly names adherence in line with the code as a mitigating factor for fines, which makes the code commercially interesting for parties producing large volumes of generated content. Finally, note the opt-out rule: partial signature is possible, but for the sections you skip you fall back into the heavier evidential position. For anyone who missed the initial list, signature remains open; only the listing on that first list has passed.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 8.1, points (146) to (150); Commission Q&A on signing the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content (consulted 9 August 2026)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

Decide deliberately whether to sign and record the reasoning. If you do not sign, still carry out the gap analysis named in point (148) and keep it as the core of your file, together with a description of how your own measures cover Article 50(2), (4) and (5). Account for the fact that as a non-signatory you may receive more information and access requests, and structure your documentation accordingly. If you sign but opt out of sections, treat those sections as a non-signatory would and document them separately.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 8.1, points (146) to (150); Commission Q&A on signing the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content (consulted 9 August 2026)praxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source