Customer-facing AI creates an immediate transparency question—and sometimes a deeper authority problem. Businesses need to know what the bot tells people, what it is allowed to do, when a human must take over, and whether those controls still match the current model and workflow.
The Commission’s final Article 50 guidelines were published on 20 July 2026. The transparency obligations apply from 2 August 2026 and include requirements for providers of directly interactive AI systems to ensure people are explicitly informed when they are interacting with AI, subject to the Regulation’s exceptions.
Start with the actual system, role, use case and evidence boundary. The same regulation can produce different obligations for different actors and systems.
Article 50 requires providers to design certain directly interactive AI systems so people are informed that they are interacting with AI, unless that is obvious to a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances.
A policy page is not the same as an in-context disclosure. Preserve where the notice appears, which interface/version it belongs to, and whether the customer encounters it before or during the interaction.
A customer-service assistant that answers FAQs is not the same governance problem as one that changes accounts, denies service, recommends regulated products, makes eligibility judgments, or triggers downstream action.
Preserve escalation rules, handoff conditions, authority boundaries, fallback behavior, customer notices, and evidence that the chatbot does not silently exceed its declared scope.
The goal is not merely to reach an answer. It is to preserve what facts, evidence, scope and limitations supported that answer at that time.
Separate answering, recommending, drafting, deciding, approving, executing and escalating. The legal and operational risk changes when the system moves from conversation into consequence.
Record the exact disclosure language, interface location, deployment date, language/localization state and system version so the business can show what customers actually saw.
Keep the rules for handoff, override, complaint handling, restricted actions, blocked topics and exception handling—plus evidence that those controls were active for the relevant deployment.
A model swap, new tool access, new sales function, new decision authority, changed disclosure or altered customer workflow can invalidate yesterday’s governance position.
Choose the smallest operating tier that fits the portfolio today. Upgrade when system count, team size or governance scope actually requires it.
Keep a living system-level evidence record with obligations, gaps, versions and revalidation state.
START EVIDENCE PASSPORT →Coordinate evidence, owners, documentation, incidents and team compliance work in one governed workspace.
START COMPLIANCE WORKSPACE →Operate broader high-risk, GPAI, FRIA, post-market and material-change governance across a growing portfolio.
START GOVERNANCE PRO →Run institutional governance with expanded users, authority workflows, examiner rooms and portfolio reporting.
START INSTITUTION →Use the free classifier to establish the system, intended purpose, possible actor role, EU exposure and unresolved facts. When continuing evidence infrastructure is needed, paid access begins at $19 per month. Independent human readiness review remains a separate service.
Article 50 requires providers of certain AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons to design and develop them so people are informed that they are interacting with AI, unless this is obvious from the circumstances and context.
They apply from 2 August 2026. The Commission published final implementation guidelines in July 2026 to clarify scope, concepts, exemptions and practical compliance.
Not necessarily. The relevant question is whether the person is effectively informed in the interaction context. Businesses should preserve evidence of the actual notice, interface, timing, version and deployment state.
Then governance should not stop at disclosure. The business should define what the bot can decide or execute, what requires human approval, what must be escalated, and what evidence supports those authority boundaries.
No. A customer-service chatbot is not automatically high-risk simply because it interacts with customers. High-risk classification depends on the system’s intended purpose and Article 6/Annex I/Annex III conditions.
No. TA-14 can preserve the system identity, disclosure evidence, scope, authority, escalation controls, changes and revalidation history. It does not itself provide legal advice, conformity assessment, certification or regulatory approval.
TA-14 Exchange Activity
Live cumulative activity recorded across the public Exchange surface.
···
Visitors
Recorded public visitors
···
Page Views
Recorded Exchange views