The Delay Everyone Noticed Hid the Rule That Did Not Move
In June 2026 the EU agreed to push the AI Act's heaviest obligations back by more than a year, moving most high-risk requirements from August 2026 to December 2027. The headlines read as relief, and many companies quietly closed the file for another eighteen months. That is the mistake. The transparency duties under Article 50 were left exactly where they were, applying from 2 August 2026.
These duties are not aimed at the labs that build foundation models. They are aimed at the far larger group of companies that put AI in front of a customer. For an owner or a Mittelstand operator, the part of the law that was delayed is the part a specialist worries about. The part that was not delayed is the part your own customers will see first.
Three Disclosures, and They Land Where You Least Expect
From August the rule asks for three things. A chatbot or voice agent that speaks with a person must make clear that the person is dealing with a machine. Any image, audio, video, or text your systems generate must be marked as artificially produced in a machine-readable way, and a deepfake must be labelled as such. AI-written text you publish to inform the public on a matter of public interest must be disclosed, unless a person reviewed it and stands behind it editorially.
None of this lives in the server room. It lives in the service desk that now answers with a bot, the campaign visual a tool generated overnight, the product description an assistant drafted, the voiceover no human recorded. The obligation differentiates by scenario rather than demanding a label on everything, which is precisely why it cannot be met with a single default setting.
Why This Is a Deployer Problem, Not a Developer One
The law names the deployer, the company that operates the system, alongside the provider that built it. A family office that bought a customer-service bot, a firm that used a generative tool to write its marketing, a manufacturer that generated a product render, each is the operator the regulation has in mind. The argument that a vendor supplied the model does not move the duty off your books, and the fine reaches EUR 15 million or 3 percent of worldwide turnover.
The work is not technical. It is an inventory: every place where a machine speaks to your market or makes something you publish, and a clear standard for how each one declares itself. Done before August, it is an afternoon of governance. Found by a regulator or a complainant afterwards, it is a defended position you no longer control.
Read next: AI Can Now Kill Your Deal · Your Hardware Is Now Regulated Software