# From 2 August 2026 the EU AI Act requires that a system meant to talk to people tells them it is an AI, and that synthetic output is machine-readably marked

Page: https://flyvolo.ai/en/changes/ev-20260802-product-manager-1
Date: 2026-08-02 · Stage: Constraint
Can this record move a task judgement? yes
Occupation: https://flyvolo.ai/en/careers/product-manager

## Scope

EU market. The regulation was published in the Official Journal on 12 July 2024 and this article applies from 2 August 2026; the July 2026 amendment (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744) left that date in place but gave generative systems already on the market before it until 2 December 2026 to meet Article 50(2). It binds the provider of the system rather than the employer using it — which is why it sits on this page and not on a page about deploying AI. Two obligations, different in kind: Article 50(1) is a disclosure to the person in front of the product, waived only where being an AI is obvious to a reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect person, and disapplied for law-enforcement systems subject to safeguards; Article 50(2) is a technical requirement that outputs be marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated, effective and interoperable as far as technically feasible. The second is a build requirement with an engineering cost, not a line in a privacy policy. This record establishes that the duty exists and when it starts; it is not evidence of enforcement, of any product changing, or of anything about markets outside the EU.

## Source

- EU AI Act, Article 50 (verbatim mirror of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) — https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/ (primary source)
- Mirror of: Official Journal of the European Union, L series 2024/1689 of 12.7.2024 — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024, Article 50(1) and 50(2); application date from Article 113

## What this means

A product requirement arrived by statute rather than from a customer, a competitor or a roadmap, and somebody has to write it into a spec. Two of them, and the second is the expensive one: marking outputs in a machine-readable format that is effective, interoperable and robust is engineering work with trade-offs, not a disclosure string. It is also the clearest example on this site of a duty landing on the person who decides what gets built rather than on the person who deploys it — the Act separates provider from deployer, and this article is the provider's half.

## What it does not show yet

A rule in force is not a rule being enforced, and nothing here is evidence of a penalty, an inspection or a product that actually changed. It also says nothing about whether this role is growing, shrinking or being automated: it adds work to the job, which is a change in what the job contains and not a measurement of how many people do it. Outside the EU market this obligation does not apply at all, and a product sold only elsewhere is untouched by it.

## How to verify it yourself

Open your own product's spec and look for who owns the sentence that says a user is told they are talking to a machine. If nobody owns it and you ship into the EU, that is now your paragraph to write. Then ask your engineers what marking the output machine-readably would actually cost — the answer is usually the first time anyone has priced it.


More: https://flyvolo.ai/llms.txt