The Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content is a voluntary code under Article 50(7) of the EU AI Act, final version of 10 June 2026, with around 190 signatories. The Commission considers it adequate (Opinion C(2026) 4839), but it does not create a presumption of conformity (recital 41 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
For images, Commitment 1 (label design and placement), Commitment 2 (internal processes) and Commitment 3 (artistic works) apply. Non-signatories should show their compliance by other means, such as a gap analysis against the Code (guidelines para. 148).
Key facts
- First draft 17 December 2025, second draft 3 March 2026, final version 10 June 2026.
- Commission Opinion C(2026) 4839 of 8 July 2026: an adequate instrument, but not conclusive evidence of compliance (para. 52).
- No presumption of conformity: codes of practice have only limited legal effect (recital 41 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744).
- Signing is voluntary. According to the Commission's FAQ, not signing does not constitute non-compliance with the AI Act.
- Non-signatories should demonstrate compliance through other adequate means, for example a gap analysis (guidelines para. 148).
What the Code is
Article 50(7) of the AI Act tasks the Commission with encouraging codes of practice at Union level. Their purpose is to make it easier to implement the duties to detect, mark and label artificially generated or manipulated content. The Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content is such a code. It has two sections:
- Section 1 addresses providers of generative AI systems. It covers machine-readable marking under Article 50(2), for example with signed metadata (see C2PA, IPTC and metadata).
- Section 2 addresses deployers who must disclose deep fakes and certain texts under Article 50(4). This is the part for online retailers using AI images.
The Article 50 guidelines explain how the Commission reads the provision. The Code describes what labelling looks like in practice.
How the Code came about
- 17 December 2025: the Commission publishes the first draft.
- 3 March 2026: the revised second draft follows.
- 10 June 2026: final version, with the three EU icons in Annex 1.
- 8 July 2026: Commission Opinion C(2026) 4839, published on 9 July. The Commission and the AI Board consider the Code an “adequate voluntary tool”.
- End of July 2026: around 190 signatories. The Commission's list now shows 192 for Section 2 (as of 24 September 2026).
- 2 August 2026: Article 50 applies (Article 113 of the AI Act). Details in deadlines.
Legal effect: voluntary, no presumption of conformity
The Code is not law. The Digital Omnibus says so plainly in recital 41 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. The codes of practice under Article 50(7) and Article 56(6) have only limited legal effect and, in particular, do not create a presumption of conformity. For that reason, the recital says, they do not strictly need to be approved by implementing act.
Following the Code therefore does not automatically mean meeting Article 50. In its opinion, the Commission writes that providers and deployers “may rely on the Code as the EU-wide recognised instrument that is considered adequate”, adding that “adherence to the Code does not constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with these obligations” (C(2026) 4839, para. 52).
Why the Code matters anyway:
- It is the supervisory benchmark. For signatories, the Commission and market surveillance authorities focus on whether they adhere to the Code (guidelines para. 147). Signatories who opt out of sections lose that benefit.
- Non-signatories are measured against it. They should show how they meet their duties by other adequate means, for example a gap analysis (para. 148).
- It can matter for fines. When a fine is set, the deployer's technical and organisational measures count (Article 99(7) of the AI Act). The guidelines name measures under the Code as a mitigating factor (para. 149). More in fines and enforcement.
What Article 50(7) provides
Taking utmost account of the AI Board's opinion, the Commission assesses whether following a code of practice is adequate to meet the duties under Article 50(2) and (4). If not, it may adopt common rules by implementing act (Article 50(7) as amended by the Omnibus). For this Code it confirmed adequacy on 8 July 2026.
The measures for images
In Section 2, Commitments 1 to 3 concern images; Commitment 4 covers published text. The Code uses two levels. It calls measures phrased with “will” “mandatory measures under the Code”: signatories must meet them, and market surveillance authorities monitor them. Measures with “encouraged” or “may” are voluntary recommendations (Code, p. 28).
The table lists every “will” measure that applies to images in an online store, with an obvious way to implement it. It also serves as the basis for a gap analysis.
| Reference | Content of the “will” measure | In your store |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment 1, introduction | EU icon or an equivalent icon or label that follows the design and placement specifications | EU basic icon “AI” or your own label with “AI” |
| Measure 1.1(a) | “AI” as the main element, capitalised, in English; both letters the same height; proportions preserved when resized | Do not distort the icon or replace “AI” with a translation |
| Measure 1.1, audience | Take the audience and sensitive contexts into account | Add text in your customers' language |
| Measure 1.1, accessibility | Alternatives for visual elements, high contrast, screen readers, detectability by assistive technology | Accessible name for the label, sufficient contrast |
| Sub-measure 1.2.1(a) | Immediately recognisable, without user interaction or sustained attention | Label always visible, not only on hover |
| Sub-measure 1.2.1(b) | Visible for a sufficient duration | Visible for as long as the image is visible |
| Sub-measure 1.2.1(c) | Embedded in the content or an equivalent overlay; best efforts along the distribution chain | Overlay in the store; a version with the label in the image for other channels |
| Sub-measure 1.2.1(d) | At the latest at first exposure; spacing to other overlays; visible against any background | Label appears with the image; spacing to sale badges and wishlist icons |
| Sub-measure 1.2.2(a) | A place free of overlapping elements, for example the top right corner | A free corner of the image |
| Measure 2.1 | Internal processes and documentation; a verification process where AI is used regularly | Written procedure, record per image, spot checks in the live store |
| Measure 2.2 | Awareness among staff and contractors involved | Short briefing for everyone involved |
| Measure 2.3 | Internal review and external feedback; review reported cases and remedy them without undue delay; cooperate with authorities | Correction process, reporting link, contact for authorities |
| Commitment 3(a) to (c) | Artistic and similar works: icon under Measure 1.1, clear, accessible, at the latest at first exposure, for a sufficient duration; may sit next to the image | Only where the image itself is the work, such as an art print you sell |
Not relevant for images are the measures on video (Sub-measure 1.2.2(b)), closed internal contexts (1.2.2(c)), audio and text (Commitment 4). Label details are in AI label design; the icons are explained in EU AI icons. The guidelines read the category of artistic works narrowly (para. 122). In our reading, Commitment 3 does not apply to ordinary product and advertising images.
What to do if you do not sign
Most retailers will not sign the Code, and that is their choice. The Commission's FAQ on signing states: “Not signing it does not constitute non-compliance with the AI Act.” Your duty under Article 50(4) stays the same, though, and the guidelines expect evidence:
“For instance, they should carry out a gap analysis that compares the measures they have implemented with the measures set out by a code of practice that is assessed as adequate.”
Guidelines C(2026) 5054, para. 148
Para. 148 adds that deployers may also be asked about their labelling practices. A gap analysis takes five steps:
- List the measures: the “will” measures from the table above.
- Record your status: implemented, partly, not implemented or not applicable.
- Link your evidence: screenshot, setting, record entry or written procedure.
- Explain differences: why your solution serves the same purpose.
- Keep it current: review it when your store, AI tools or the Code change.
A checklist for your internal procedure under Measures 2.1 to 2.3 and a template text for customers are in AI disclosure statement.
Sign or not?
Any provider and deployer of a generative AI system may sign the Code using the Commission's signatory form. Sections can be signed individually, individual commitments cannot (Commission FAQ). Signatories are assessed mainly on whether they adhere to the Code (para. 147): a clear benchmark, but binding you to every “will” measure of the section. Whether that is worthwhile is your decision.
You may use the EU icons without signing. According to the Commission, using them does not signal adherence to the Code. Do not advertise a signature that does not exist, or approval by the Commission: that can be misleading. ai-label.app has not signed the Code and has not been reviewed by the Commission. Our tools follow its design rules.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Code of Practice binding?
It is a voluntary code and creates no presumption of conformity (recital 41 of Regulation (EU) 2026/1744). For signatories, its “will” measures are the benchmark supervisors apply (guidelines para. 147).
Do I need to sign the Code to label AI images?
No. Signing is voluntary, and according to the Commission's FAQ not signing does not constitute non-compliance with the AI Act. The duty to label deep fakes under Article 50(4) applies either way.
How many signatories does the Code have?
Around 190 by the end of July 2026. The Commission's list shows 192 signatories for Section 2, labelling by deployers (as of 24 September 2026).
What is a gap analysis?
A comparison of the measures you have implemented with the measures in the Code. The guidelines give it as an example of how non-signatories can demonstrate compliance (para. 148).
Can I mention the Code in my marketing?
Do not claim a signature you do not have, or approval by the Commission. That can be misleading. A factual statement that you follow the Code's design rules is the cautious wording.
Sources
All sources read in full. Paragraph numbers (para.) refer to the European Commission's guidelines on Article 50, C(2026) 5054.
- Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content (final version)Europäische Kommission · Code of practice · 10 Jun 2026
- Commission Opinion on the adequacy of the Code, C(2026) 4839 finalEuropäische Kommission · Commission · 8 Jul 2026
- Signatories of the Code of PracticeEuropäische Kommission · Commission · 24 Sept 2026
- Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI)EUR-Lex · Law · 24 Jul 2026
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)EUR-Lex · Law · 12 Jul 2024
- Commission Guidelines on the transparency obligations under Article 50 AI Act, C(2026) 5054 finalEuropäische Kommission · Commission · 20 Jul 2026
- EU icons for labelling AI-generated contentEuropäische Kommission · Commission · 24 Sept 2026
Not legal advice. This content explains the law based on primary sources; it does not replace an assessment of your individual case.
AI-generated
