Aller au contenu principal

Site en construction — les informations peuvent ne pas être fiables à 100 % et sont susceptibles d'évoluer.

Droit contraignant · UE · Applicable le 2 août 2026

Checklist de conformité — article 50

L'article 50 crée des obligations de transparence pour les fournisseurs et les déployeurs de certains systèmes d'IA. Parcourez les contrôles ci-dessous par rôle, cochez ce qui est fait, et conservez les preuves produites par chaque contrôle.

Contenu vérifié le 2026-08-03

Outil purement indicatif — pas un conseil juridique

Cet outil synthétise des documents officiels de l'UE à des fins d'information. Il ne constitue pas un conseil juridique, le compléter n'établit pas votre conformité, et les situations limites dépendent des faits propres à chaque cas. Faites examiner votre situation par un avocat.

L'AI Omnibus n'a pas reporté l'article 50

L'AI Omnibus a reporté le régime « haut risque » — systèmes de l'annexe III au 2 décembre 2027 et de l'annexe I au 2 août 2028 — mais il n'a pas reporté l'article 50. Les obligations de transparence s'appliquent bien depuis le 2 août 2026. L'Omnibus a en revanche modifié l'article 50(2), en y ajoutant la transition limitée au 2 décembre 2026 ci-dessous.

Ce que coûte le non-respect

Jusqu'à 15 millions d'euros ou 3 % du chiffre d'affaires mondial annuel

  • Pour les entreprises, le plafond applicable est le plus élevé des deux montants.
  • Pour les PME et les jeunes pousses, l'article 99(6) inverse le calcul : le plafond est le plus bas des deux montants.
  • Pour les institutions, organes et organismes de l'UE, la fiche officielle de la Commission indique des amendes pouvant atteindre 750 000 € ; le CEPD est l'autorité compétente.
  • L'application est décentralisée — les autorités nationales de surveillance du marché traitent l'article 50 en première ligne.

Comment utiliser cette checklist

Commencez par les contrôles juridiques : la première question n'est pas « utilisons-nous de l'IA ? » mais quelles entités sont fournisseurs, lesquelles sont déployeurs, et quels résultats atteignent directement des personnes. Une même société est souvent les deux.

Filtrez par rôle pour donner à chaque équipe sa propre liste de travail. Votre progression est enregistrée dans ce navigateur uniquement — rien n'est transmis ni stocké sur un serveur.

L'article 50 ne remplace pas le RGPD. Pour la reconnaissance des émotions et la catégorisation biométrique, l'information est nécessaire mais pas suffisante : une base légale, et le cas échéant une AIPD, restent requises.

Étape 1 · Triage par situation

Quelles obligations s'appliquent à vous ?

Cochez chaque affirmation qui décrit votre organisation. Les obligations applicables s'affichent en dessous, avec les groupes de la checklist à traiter.

Ce qui s'applique à vous

Rien de sélectionné pour l'instant — cochez les situations ci-dessus pour voir les obligations applicables.

Correspondance purement indicative — pas un conseil juridique. Les situations limites dépendent des faits et relèvent d'un avocat.

Étape 2 · Contrôles

Déroulez les contrôles

Applicable à partir du

2 août 2026

Marquage art. 50(2) — systèmes existants

2 décembre 2026

Uniquement pour l'obligation de marquage de l'art. 50(2), et seulement pour les systèmes mis sur le marché avant le 2 août 2026.

0 sur 18 contrôles cochés

0%

  • Legal & compliance· ScopeHaute

    Complete Article 50 scoping and role allocation

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Legal & compliance· Art. 50(2), (4), (5)Haute

    Decide on the Code of Practice strategy

    Échéance: Within days

  • Legal & compliance· EvidenceHaute

    Create an Article 50 evidence file

    Échéance: Immediate and ongoing

  • Providers· Art. 50(1)Haute

    Enable direct-interaction disclosure by design

    Échéance: Immediate — complete before 2 Aug 2026

  • Providers· Art. 50(2)Haute

    Implement machine-readable provenance or marking

    Échéance: Immediate for live systems; eligible legacy systems by 2 Dec 2026

  • Providers· Art. 50(2)Haute

    Separate in-scope from out-of-scope outputs

    Échéance: Immediate; refresh monthly

  • Deployers· Art. 50(4)Haute

    Turn on deepfake labelling

    Échéance: Immediate — complete before 2 Aug 2026

  • Deployers· Art. 50(4)Haute

    Label public-interest text, or control the review exemption

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Deployers· Art. 50(3)Haute

    Implement emotion-recognition and biometric exposure notices

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Product & engineering· Art. 50(5)Haute

    Ensure notices appear at first interaction or first exposure

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Product & engineering· Art. 50(5)Haute

    Make notices and labels accessible and perceivable

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Product & engineering· Art. 50(2)Haute

    Preserve and verify metadata through the pipeline

    Échéance: Critical fixes before 2 Aug 2026; eligible legacy fixes before 2 Dec 2026

  • Communications & editorial· Art. 50(4)Haute

    Build a meaningful human-review workflow for public-interest text

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Communications & editorial· Art. 50(5)Moyenne

    Standardise label placement and icon usage

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Communications & editorial· Art. 50(4)Moyenne

    Handle artistic, satirical and fictional content separately

    Échéance: Before publication of each asset

  • Vendors & procurement· RolesHaute

    Allocate Article 50 duties contractually

    Échéance: Immediate for top-risk vendors

  • Vendors & procurement· Art. 50(2)Haute

    Obtain vendor evidence on marking capabilities and limits

    Échéance: Immediate

  • Vendors & procurement· Art. 50(3)Haute

    Align privacy terms for biometric or emotion systems

    Échéance: Immediate

Exemples de mentions

L'article 50 n'impose pas de formulation précise : l'information doit être claire, distinguable, accessible et fournie au plus tard lors de la première interaction ou exposition. Ces exemples sont illustratifs, rédigés d'après le standard légal et non repris d'un modèle officiel de l'UE.

  • Direct AI interaction

    “You are interacting with an AI system.”

    Shortest defensible version for chat, voice, kiosk, or avatar experiences. Use at the start of the interaction.

  • Direct AI interaction, with escalation

    “You are interacting with our AI assistant. A human can review or take over where available.”

    The second sentence is optional but often good UX. The first sentence carries the Article 50 function.

  • Emotion recognition or biometric categorisation

    “This service uses AI-based emotion recognition or biometric categorisation during operation.”

    Article 50(3) does not itself require the purpose to be stated, but a GDPR privacy notice may require broader information.

  • Deepfake video or audio

    “This content has been artificially generated or manipulated using AI.”

    Put it on the player, opening frame, caption, or audible introduction. Do not rely only on hidden metadata.

  • AI-generated public-interest text

    “This text was generated or manipulated using AI and was not subject to human editorial review.”

    Use where the human-review exemption is not met.

  • Voluntary disclosure for exempt text

    “This publication used AI assistance and was reviewed by human editors.”

    Not legally required where the exemption applies. Many organisations still use it as a trust measure — a policy choice, not an Article 50 mandate.

Étape 3 · Cas limites

Bibliothèque de scénarios

Vingt situations concrètes — y compris les cas limites qui piègent les équipes : systèmes existants, salariés, entités hors UE, œuvres artistiques, textes internes, usages répressifs. Chaque fiche indique ce qui s'applique et les pièges fréquents.

  • Provider situations

    Customer-facing chatbot or voice assistant

    You build or offer a system intended to interact directly with natural persons.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Art. 50(1): design the disclosure into the system before market placement — default greeting, banner or voice prompt, in every channel and locale.
    • Disclosure at the latest at the first interaction.

    Pièges fréquents

    • The “obvious AI interaction” exception is interpreted restrictively — document any reliance on it.
    • A disclosure that exists in one channel but not in an embedded widget or API wrapper is a gap.
  • Provider situations

    Generative AI product — image, audio, video or text

    Your system produces synthetic content within Article 50(2).

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Machine-readable marking, detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
    • Solutions effective, interoperable, robust and reliable so far as technically feasible — document feasibility limits by modality.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Marks that do not survive export, compression, API delivery or platform upload.
    • Relying on marking alone where a deployer also needs a visible disclosure.
  • Provider situations

    Assistive or standard-editing features only

    Your AI feature retouches, corrects or adjusts content without substantially altering the input.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • No marking duty where the input is not substantially altered (standard-editing exception).

    Pièges fréquents

    • The line between “standard editing” and generation is factual — document the analysis per feature, and revisit when features gain generative capability.
  • Provider situations

    System placed on the market before 2 August 2026

    An in-scope system predates the application date.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Transition until 2 December 2026 — but only for the Art. 50(2) machine-readable marking duty.
    • All other Article 50 duties apply from 2 August 2026.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Treating the grace period as a general postponement — it is not.
    • Systems placed on the market on or after 2 August 2026 get no transition at all.
  • Provider situations

    B2B, machine-to-machine or closed-loop industrial outputs

    Outputs are source code, short symbol strings, machine-to-machine data, or non-final industrial outputs.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • These can fall outside the Art. 50(2) marking duty; the guidelines also describe a narrow B2B or industrial exemption under stated conditions.

    Pièges fréquents

    • The exemption is narrow and conditional — keep a documented rationale per output type, signed off by an owner.
    • An “industrial” output that later reaches consumers re-enters scope.
  • Provider situations

    Non-EU provider with users in the Union

    You have no EU establishment, but your system's outputs are used in the EU.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Article 2 scope: non-EU providers and deployers can still be in scope where outputs are used in the Union.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Assuming geography alone puts you out of scope — map where outputs actually land, not where servers sit.
  • Deployer situations

    Vendor chatbot embedded on your site or app

    You deploy a third-party conversational system under your authority.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • The provider builds the disclosure; you need operational controls so it actually appears in use — in your theme, your locales, your channels.

    Pièges fréquents

    • A custom skin or integration that hides the provider's disclosure.
    • No contractual clarity on who answers a regulator's question.
  • Deployer situations

    Deepfake in marketing, training or entertainment content

    You publish AI-generated or manipulated image, audio or video that appears real.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Art. 50(4): visible or audible disclosure at first exposure — player overlay, opening frame, caption or audible introduction.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Relying on the provider's hidden metadata alone — it does not satisfy the visible-disclosure duty.
    • Labels that disappear when content is downloaded, shared, embedded or reposted.
  • Deployer situations

    Evidently artistic, satirical or fictional work

    The deepfake is part of a film, satire, fiction or analogous work.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Disclosure may be given in a way that does not hamper enjoyment of the work.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Over-claiming the allowance for content that is not evidently artistic — classify and document each asset.
  • Deployer situations

    AI-drafted articles on public-interest topics

    You publish AI-generated text informing the public on politics, health, law, justice, security, environment, consumer safety or major public debate.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Label the text — or run it through substantive human review with a person holding editorial responsibility.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Spell-checking or grammar passes do not qualify as substantive review.
    • “Editorial responsibility” left undefined — name the person.
  • Deployer situations

    Internal-only AI text, never published

    AI drafts internal reports, memos or emails that are not published to inform the public.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • The Art. 50(4) text duty targets text published to inform the public on matters of public interest — purely internal documents are generally outside it.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Internal content that later gets published — build the labelling check into the publication step, not the drafting step.
  • Deployer situations

    Emotion recognition in HR, sales or support

    Workplace analytics, interview tools or call-centre systems infer emotions.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Art. 50(3): inform exposed persons the system is operating, at first exposure.
    • GDPR in parallel: lawful basis, transparency, and likely a DPIA — a notice alone is not compliance.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Forgetting that other AI Act chapters (including high-risk duties) may apply on top of Article 50.
  • Deployer situations

    Biometric categorisation in physical spaces

    Kiosks, retail analytics or CCTV-linked systems categorise people on biometric data.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Art. 50(3) notice at first exposure — posted where people actually see it.
    • Large-scale monitoring of publicly accessible areas is a typical DPIA trigger under the GDPR.

    Pièges fréquents

    • A notice hidden in a privacy policy no one sees before exposure.
  • Deployer situations

    Content created before 2 August 2026

    Your archives contain AI-generated content from before the application date.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • No retroactive labelling is required; the Commission encourages voluntary labelling where feasible.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Re-publishing or re-cutting old content after 2 August 2026 — treat that as a new publication decision.
  • Special cases

    You are both provider and deployer

    One business unit ships an AI product; another uses third-party AI tools.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Allocate the role per use case in a single register, and assign each Article 50 duty accordingly.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Duties falling into the gap between two teams that each assume the other owns them.
  • Special cases

    Employees using AI tools at work

    Staff use AI systems in the course of their job.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Employees acting under the authority and control of a legal entity are generally not separate deployers — the company holds the duties.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Shadow AI: tools adopted by teams without appearing in the company's use-case register.
  • Special cases

    EU institutions, bodies and agencies

    The provider or deployer is an EU institution.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • The European Data Protection Supervisor is the competent authority; the Commission fact page notes fines up to €750,000.
  • Special cases

    SMEs and start-ups

    You are a small company with limited compliance resources.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • The duties are identical — size does not change what Article 50 requires.
    • Only the arithmetic of the ceiling changes. For undertakings generally, the ceiling is the higher of €15 million or 3% of worldwide annual turnover; Article 99(6) inverts this for SMEs and start-ups, making it the lower of the two.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Reading the SME rule as a lighter obligation rather than a lower ceiling — the duties themselves are unchanged.
    • Deferring scoping because of size — the register and front-end notices are the minimum viable controls.
  • Special cases

    Content distributed on a very large online platform

    Your AI-generated content is published on a designated very large online platform or search engine.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Article 50 duties continue to apply to you as provider or deployer.
    • The platform carries its own DSA systemic-risk obligations for generative content, including marking where feasible — those duties sit on the platform, not on you, and do not discharge your Article 50 disclosure.
    • Where the same entity provides both the system and the underlying general-purpose model, or the system is integrated into a designated platform, the AI Office has a specific enforcement role alongside national authorities.

    Pièges fréquents

    • Assuming a platform's automatic AI label satisfies your own deployer disclosure — it does not.
  • Special cases

    System built on your own GPAI model, or integrated into a designated platform

    The same entity provides both the system and the general-purpose model, or the system is integrated into a designated very large online platform or search engine.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • The AI Office has a specific enforcement role in these configurations, alongside national market surveillance authorities.
  • Special cases

    Law-enforcement uses

    The system is used for the detection, prevention, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.

    Ce qui s'applique

    • Specific exceptions exist across Art. 50(1)–(4), under the conditions stated in each paragraph.

    Pièges fréquents

    • The exceptions are conditional, not a blanket carve-out — document the reliance conditions for each use.

Sources primaires

Cette checklist est fournie à titre informatif uniquement. Elle ne constitue pas un conseil juridique et ne crée aucune relation avocat-client. Elle reflète les orientations de la Commission et les documents officiels disponibles à la date de rédaction, et simplifie des questions qui peuvent dépendre de circonstances particulières. Vérifiez auprès des sources primaires ci-dessous et faites analyser votre situation.

← Retour au règlement IA

C. Saint-Girons, Esq

AI Law & Legal Intelligence

Recherche en droit de l'IA, veille réglementaire et intelligence juridique, menées par un avocat.

À titre informatif uniquement — ne constitue pas un conseil juridique.

Site en construction : les informations peuvent ne pas être fiables à 100 % et sont susceptibles d'évoluer.

© 2026 C. Saint-Girons

Admin

New York