Article 50 for Chatbots and AI Agents: What You Must Disclose

The chatbot labeling obligation derives from Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU AI Act): users must be able to tell that they are interacting with an AI rather than a human. The disclosure must be made clearly and in good time, unless the AI nature is obvious from the circumstances. The transparency obligations have applied since 2 August 2026. For agencies that ship chatbots and voice agents, this is the central obligation.

The three most important answers upfront

• Who must label? Article 50(1) addresses the provider, that is, the party who makes the system available under its own name. In a white-label setup, whether that is the client or the agency depends on whose name or trademark the bot runs under (Article 3(3)).
• When does the obligation apply? The transparency obligations have applied since 2 August 2026. For generative AI systems placed on the market before that date, the deadline for machine-readable marking runs until 2 December 2026.
• What does a breach cost? Up to 15 million euros or 3 percent of total worldwide annual turnover (fine tier 2 under Article 99).

What Article 50 specifically requires

Article 50 sits between the unregulated minimal-risk tier and the high-risk regime. It applies regardless of high-risk classification: many chatbots and voice agents are subject solely to the Article 50 transparency obligations and to no further high-risk requirements. The Regulation recognizes four triggers.

For classic chatbots and voice agents, Article 50(1) is decisive: AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons must be designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI. The obligation falls on the provider and applies unless this is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use.

Also relevant for agents that produce content:

• Article 50(2) requires the provider to mark synthetically generated audio, image, video or text content as artificially generated or manipulated in a machine-readable format. This also covers general-purpose AI systems that generate content.
• Article 50(3) requires the deployer of an emotion recognition or biometric categorization system to inform the exposed natural persons of its operation.
• Article 50(4) requires the deployer to disclose deepfakes as well as AI-generated texts on matters of public interest, with narrowly interpreted exceptions for artistic works and for texts subject to human editorial responsibility.

When and how the notice must be given

The EU AI Act does not prescribe any fixed wording or rigid placement. What is required is that users are informed clearly and in good time, at the latest when the interaction begins. Three principles help with implementation:

1. In good time means: at the start of the conversation, not only in the small print or after several messages. For voice agents, the notice must come audibly at the start of the conversation.
2. Clear and not hidden means: clearly visible, not buried in the terms and conditions. As the deployer of a third-party chatbot, you should check whether the provider's disclosure is actually present and not concealed.
3. Comprehensible means: recognizable to the average user without any technical prior knowledge.

Proven formulations for practice (not prescribed texts, but examples that fulfill the transparency objective):

• Chat notice: "You are chatting with an AI assistant, not a human."
• Bot greeting: "Hello, I am an AI-powered assistant. How can I help?"
• Voice agent at the start of the conversation: "You are speaking with an automated AI assistant, not a human."

The exception: obvious to recognize

Article 50(1) does not apply where the AI nature is obvious from the circumstances and the context of use. This exception is interpreted narrowly. A voice agent that sounds human must disclose its AI nature, precisely because it is not obvious. A chatbot with a human name and profile picture likewise does not fall under the exception. Anyone relying on it should document the justification in writing. In the event of a dispute, the responsible party bears the burden of argumentation.

Overview: who must label what?

Practical example with figures: service chatbot in retail

An Austrian online retailer has its agency build a customer service chatbot that runs on a GPAI model and handles around 8,000 conversations per month. The bot bears a human-sounding name and an avatar image. Classification: limited risk, Article 50(1) applies; because the bot makes no decisions about access to essential services, no high-risk classification arises.

If the agency ships the bot under the retailer's brand name, the retailer is typically the provider and bears the Article 50(1) obligation. If, on the other hand, the agency rebrands it and distributes it as its own product, it is itself the provider under the definition in Article 3(3), and the obligation moves to it. Implementation: a visible notice "You are chatting with an AI assistant, not a human" at the start of the conversation, plus a documented assessment that the "obvious" exception does not apply here (human name plus avatar).

A worked example on the risk: in the absence of labeling, the tier 2 fine applies, up to 15 million euros or 3 percent of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher (Article 99(4)). For a company with a group turnover of 200 million euros that is neither an SME nor a small mid-cap, 3 percent would be 6 million euros. Because 15 million euros is the higher value, the cap here is 15 million euros. The percentage only applies above an annual turnover of 500 million euros. For SMEs and start-ups, the lower of the two values applies under Article 99(6); since the Digital Omnibus, the same applies to small mid-cap enterprises (SMCs) under Article 99(6a).

Deadlines under the Digital Omnibus

The transparency obligations of Article 50 have applied since 2 August 2026 (Article 113). The Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) has been in force since 27 July 2026. It gives only providers of generative AI systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026 a transitional period until 2 December 2026 for machine-readable marking under Article 50(2). New systems have had to mark their output since 2 August 2026.

Important: the Digital Omnibus postpones the high-risk obligations (Annex III now from 2 December 2027), but not Article 50 in substance. Alongside this, the European Commission published the final Code of Practice on marking and labeling AI-generated content on 10 June 2026 (drafts of 17 December 2025 and 3 March 2026). On 20 July 2026 it approved and published the guidelines on the Article 50 transparency obligations, after a draft had been out for consultation since 8 May 2026.

For agencies and B2B

Anyone who ships chatbots or voice agents should settle three things immediately: first, the clarification of roles in the contract: who is the provider, who is the deployer, and does the branding make the agency the provider under Article 3(3)? Second, the disclosure component as a standard in every bot: a visible notice in the chat, an audible notice for the voice agent. Third, documentation of the exception assessment, should you rely on "obvious to recognize". Blck Alpaca supports DACH agencies and B2B teams in integrating this labeling cleanly, in a user-friendly and audit-proof manner, into existing chatbot stacks.

Note: This article serves as professional orientation and does not constitute legal advice. For a legally binding assessment of your specific use case, please consult qualified legal counsel.