Transparency § 8.1

Providers and deployers of AI systems falling within the scope of Article 50(2) and (4) AI Act may demonstrate compliance with the ir respective transparency obligations for AI-generated content under those provisions by adhering to a code of practice that is assessed as adequate pursuant to Article 50(7) AI Act (⁴³). Such a Code does not replace the AI Act or these Guidelines. It complements them by providing the only Union-wide recognised practical framework for providers and deployers of generative AI systems to demonstrate compliance with those obligations , regardless of the ir place of establishment, operation, and competent market surveillance authorities.

While providers and deployers may also demonstrate compliance with those obligations through adequate alternative means, adherence to a code of practice that is deemed adequate is a straightforward , predictable , and legally certain way of demonstrating compliance. For signatories of a code of practice that is assessed as adequate pursuant to Article 50(7) AI Act (⁴⁴), the Commission and the competent market surveillance authorities will focus their supervisory activities on assessing whether those signatories have adhered to the code of practice and implemented the measures contained therein. As adhering providers and deployers will be transparent about the measures they implement to comply with Article 50(2), (4) and (5) AI Act, they will benefit from increased trust from the Commission , the other competent market surveillance authorities, and other stakeholders (including the general public ). Any opt-out from sections by signatories of a code of practice that is deemed adequate will result in those providers and deployerslosing the benefit of facilitating the demonstration of compliance in that respect.

Providers and deployers that are not signatories to a code of practice that is deemed adequate pursuant to Article 50(7) AI Act are expected to demonstrate how they have complied with their obligations under Article 50(2), (4) and (5) AI Act through other adequate means. Furthermore, such providers and deployers are expected to explain how the measures they implement ensure compliance with their obligations under the AI Act. 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. Since competent authorities (including the AI Office) will have less understanding of how providers and deployers that are not signa tories to a code of practice ensure compliance with their obligations under Article50(2), (4) and (5) AIAct, they will likely need more detailed information when monitoring for compliance.For example, providers not adhering to a code of practice may also be subject to a larger number of requests for information and requests for access to assess the effectiveness, interoperability, robustness and reliability of the technical solutions implemented to comply with Article 50(2) AI Act. Deployers may also be subject to such requestswith regard to their labelling practices under Article 50(4) AI Act.

Competent authorities may take commitments implemented in line with a code of practice that is deemed adequate into account as a mitigating factor when fixing the amount of fines, depending on the specific circumstances (⁴⁵).

If a code of practice is not deemed adequate pursuant to Article 50(7) AI Act, the Commission may adopt an implementing act specifying common rules for the implementation of the obligations of Article 50(2), (4) and (5) AI Act, which would be applicable to all relevant providers and deployers of AI systems falling within the scope of those provisions (⁴⁶).