The editorial exception: substantive review plus an identifiable responsible person

Point (133) of the guidelines of 20 July 2026 sets two cumulative conditions: the AI-generated or manipulated text must have undergone human review or editorial control, and a natural or legal person must hold editorial responsibility for the publication. Point (134) describes human review as the deliberate examination of the substance of the content by one or more natural persons possessing relevant knowledge and professional judgement on the subject matter, citing academic peer review and professional validation chains as examples, and states that fact-checking the accuracy of the content is a minimum requirement that must form part of that review. Editorial control is described in that same point as the control exercised in practice by a responsible editorial entity, for example an editor-in-chief, with the authority to approve, alter or reject the substance of the text on substantive grounds, including fact-checking and ensuring the trustworthiness of sources. Point (135) states that superficial, solely formal or procedural checks such as spell-checking or grammatical correction, the mere existence of an editorial policy, automated review processes, and cursory editorial approval without substantive engagement by the human reviewer or the editorial entity cannot fulfil the conditions. Point (136) states that where AI systems are used to modify, supplement or reformulate content following editorial sign-off, the resulting content must be treated as AI-generated or manipulated, and that any substantive AI intervention occurring after the human review or editorial control will cause the exception to become void. Point (138) states that the person holding editorial responsibility must hold the ultimate responsibility over the publication, including the human review or editorial control, and that the identity and contact details of that legal person, natural person or function should be made publicly available in an easily findable location, online for example through a website's terms and conditions or other user-facing legal information, offline for example in a colophon. As examples meeting the conditions the document cites among others an AI-manipulated newspaper article or AI-generated summary subject to the editorial control of the editor-in-chief, an AI-manipulated academic blog that has undergone internal peer review, AI-generated public safety warnings approved by a public official, and AI-generated sustainability reports reviewed by professionals in relevant functions. As examples failing the conditions the document cites a website where AI-generated articles on Union policy are posted without any deliberate human review, and AI-generated articles reviewed and edited by another AI system where a human editor performs a mere superficial grammatical check before publication.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.2.3, points (133) to (138) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

This exception is why most newsrooms and communications departments do not have to label, but it is narrower than it looks. Three pitfalls. First, sequence: many organisations have the text approved and then let an AI tool 'polish it a bit' for SEO, length or tone. Point (136) states literally that any substantive AI intervention after sign-off voids the exception. The AI step must therefore come before the human review, not after it. Second, depth: it must be deliberate examination of the substance with fact-checking as a minimum. An editor who only reads for flow does not qualify, and an AI reviewing another AI certainly does not. Third, visibility: it must be publicly findable who holds editorial responsibility. A colophon or a clear statement in the site's legal information is not a formality but a condition of the exception. Notably, the guidelines expressly place this exception outside the media as well, citing sustainability reports and government warnings. Your compliance or communications function can therefore act as the reviewer, provided the review is genuinely substantive.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.2.3, points (133) to (138) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source

Always place your AI step before human approval in the workflow, and technically block any AI edit running after sign-off, including automatic SEO optimisation or shortening. Record per publication stream who performs the substantive review, that fact-checking forms part of it, and who holds editorial responsibility. Publish that responsible function or person with contact details in an easily findable location, for example in the colophon or with the site's legal information. Keep a short record per publication of who reviewed the substance and when, so you can substantiate reliance on the exception.

• Locator: Commission Guidelines C(2026) 5054 final, Section 6.2.3, points (133) to (138) and the accompanying example listspraxikon:eu:ai-act:source:commission-article-50-guidelinesOpen official source